Feed Editor26 Nov 2006 04:05:23 GMTFederalist Society Event AudioThe Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at www.federalistsociety.org/multimedia.http://fedsoc.server326.com/audio/MP3s/fsaudio.xml
2013its@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society)Vocalen-usits@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society)The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at www.federalistsociety.org/multimedia.The Federalist Societydebate, conservative, libertarian, law, legal, federalist, lawyer, lawyers, judges, convention, constitution, governmentnoThe Federalist Societyinfo@fed-soc.orghttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20090724_EventPodcastssmall2.jpghttp://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/page/multimedia-archive
This audiocast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. This audiocast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy.Federalist Society Event AudioKing v. Burwell: U.S. Supreme Court Preview of the Next Challenge to the Affordable Care Act 2-26-2015<p><strong>Federalism &amp; Separation of Powers Practice Group</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/king-v-burwell-us-supreme-court-preview-of-the-next-challenge-to-the-affordable-care-act-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140722_americanhealthcaremoney360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>On March 4, 2015 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on <em>King v. Burwell</em>. The Federalist Society proudly hosts a panel discussion ahead of the oral arguments. <em>King v. Burwell</em> focuses on whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, </strong>Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Simon Lazarus,</strong> Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center</li><li><strong>Ms. Carrie Severino, </strong>Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network</li><li><strong>Mr. Robert N. Weiner,</strong> Arnold &amp; Porter LLP</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Mr. Robert Barnes,</strong> Reporter, <em>The Washington Post</em></li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Dean A. Reuter,</strong> Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>26 Feb 2015 15:05:22 GMThttp://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/king-v-burwell-us-supreme-court-preview-of-the-next-challenge-to-the-affordable-care-act-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150226_KingvBurwell2262015.mp3Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice GroupOn March 4, 2015 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on King v. Burwell. The Federalist Society proudly hosts a panel discussion ahead of the oral arguments. King v. Burwell focuses on whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Mr. Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center; Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network; and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Arnold & Porter LLP. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Reporter, The Washington Post. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:24:39noThe Future of Media: Is Government Regulation In Today's Media Landscape "Over-The-Top"? 2-25-2015<p><strong>The Future of Media</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-future-of-media-is-government-regulation-in-todays-media-landscape-over-the-top-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20150220_media360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>The Federalist Society's Telecommunications &amp; Electronic Media Practice Group and its George Washington University Law School Student Chapter co-sponsored a conference on the Future of Media -- examining the government's role in light of today's rapidly evolving media landscape. The conference took place at The George Washington University Law School on February 25, 2015.</p><p><strong>Panel Presentation</strong><br /> 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.</p><ul><li><strong>Jeffrey H. Blum,</strong> Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH Network Corporation</li><li><strong>Rick Kaplan,</strong> General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Legal Affairs, National Association of Broadcasters</li><li><strong>Barry J. Ohlson,</strong> Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Cox Enterprises</li><li><strong>Ryan Radia,</strong> Associate Director of Technology Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Patricia J. Paoletta,</strong> Partner, Harris, Wiltshire &amp; Grannis LLP</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The George Washington University Law School<br /> Washington, DC</p>26 Feb 2015 17:24:29 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-future-of-media-is-government-regulation-in-todays-media-landscape-over-the-top-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150226_TheFutureofMedia2252015.mp3The Future of MediaThe Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and its George Washington University Law School Student Chapter co-sponsored a conference on the Future of Media -- examining the government's role in light of today's rapidly evolving media landscape. The conference took place at The George Washington University Law School on February 25, 2015. -- Featuring: Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH Network Corporation; Rick Kaplan, General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Legal Affairs, National Association of Broadcasters; Barry J. Ohlson, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Cox Enterprises; and Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP.The Federalist Society40:56noAddress by FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright - 2-25-2015<p><strong>The Future of Media</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-ftc-commissioner-joshua-d-wright-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130613_JoshuaWright.gif" /></a> The Federalist Society's Telecommunications &amp; Electronic Media Practice Group and its George Washington University Law School Student Chapter co-sponsored a conference on the Future of Media -- examining the government's role in light of today's rapidly evolving media landscape. The conference took place at The George Washington University Law School on February 25, 2015.</p><p><strong>Keynote Address</strong><br />12:30 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.</p><ul><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Bryan N. Tramont,</strong> Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP and Chairman, Telecommunications &amp; Electronic Media Practice Group</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Anthony Glosson,</strong> Student Member, Telecommunications &amp; Electronic Media Practice Group and Editor-in-Chief, <em>Federal Communications Law Journal</em></li><li><strong>Hon. Joshua D. Wright,</strong> Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The George Washington University Law School<br /> Washington, DC</p>26 Feb 2015 17:21:21 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-ftc-commissioner-joshua-d-wright-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150226_AddressbyJoshuaWright2252015.mp3The Future of MediaThe Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and its George Washington University Law School Student Chapter co-sponsored a conference on the Future of Media -- examining the government's role in light of today's rapidly evolving media landscape. The conference took place at The George Washington University Law School on February 25, 2015. -- Featuring: Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. Introduction: Mr. Anthony Glosson, Student Member, Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and Editor-in-Chief, Federal Communications Law Journal. Introduction: Mr. Bryan N. Tramont, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP and Chairman, Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group.The Federalist Society46:54noExecutive Action on Immigration 2-19-2015<p><strong>Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/executive-action-on-immigration-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20150212_SocialSecuritycardandPermanentResidentcardwithAmericanFlag360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>On November 20, 2014, President Obama, with much attention from the media and the public, announced executive action on immigration. Our discussion will address the specifics of the President’s actions, and the legality of those actions. What exactly was said and done by the President, and how do his actions differ from acts he previously asserted were beyond his unilateral power? Has the President exceeded his constitutional authority to act? What happens next? Please join us over the lunch hour for a discussion with three experts in the field.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Kamal Essaheb</strong>, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center</li><li><strong>Mr. David Rivkin,</strong> Partner, Baker &amp; Hostetler LLP</li><li><strong>Mr. Ilya Shapiro,</strong> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Peter Bisbee,</strong> Membership Director and Associate Director of External Relations, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>20 Feb 2015 18:28:07 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/executive-action-on-immigration-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150220_ExecutiveActiononImmigration2192015.mp3Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice GroupsOn November 20, 2014, President Obama, with much attention from the media and the public, announced executive action on immigration. Our discussion will address the specifics of the President’s actions, and the legality of those actions. What exactly was said and done by the President, and how do his actions differ from acts he previously asserted were beyond his unilateral power? Has the President exceeded his constitutional authority to act? What happens next? Please join us over the lunch hour for a discussion with three experts in the field. -- Featuring: Mr. Kamal Essaheb, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center; Mr. David Rivkin, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP; and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute. Moderator: Mr. Peter Bisbee, Membership Director and Associate Director of External Relations, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:23:40noAnimal Personhood: A Debate 2-11-2015<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups</span></p><p><strong><em>The Federalist Society does not authorize the use or transcription of these recordings, in part or in whole, by any person or organization for any use other than for the private viewing of the recorded event.</em></strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/animal-personhood-a-debate-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20150128_chimpanzee360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>Some animal rights activists have maintained for years that animals deserve many of the same basic legal rights that humans have. Though &ldquo;animal personhood” might be perceived as a niche issue, the legal status of animals such as apes, dolphins, elephants and whales reaches far beyond the realm of animal rights—to the food, pharmaceutical, tourism and entertainment industries and more. Recently, animal rights supporters have begun turning to the legal system for help. In late 2013, the animal rights organization Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in New York State to establish the &ldquo;legal personhood” of four chimpanzees and relocate them to outdoor sanctuaries. While intermediate appellate courts have rejected the Nonhuman Rights Project’s argument, the group has publicly stated its intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court.</p><p> These lawsuits were the first in the United States to seek limited personhood rights for animals with advanced cognitive abilities. At the core of the lawsuits are fundamental questions about the legal status of animals. Is the concept of animal rights more about the restriction of human activity, or about truly granting rights to animals? Do current animal welfare laws provide sufficient protections to animals? Should animals have the ability to challenge their own detention, though the writ of habeas corpus?</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Richard L. Cupp</strong>, John W. Wade Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Steven M. Wise</strong>, President, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc.</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. A. Raymond Randolph</strong>, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Feb 2015 21:38:17 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/animal-personhood-a-debate-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150212_AnimalPersonhoodDebate1112015.mp3Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice GroupsThe Federalist Society does not authorize the use or transcription of these recordings, in part or in whole, by any person or organization for any use other than for the private viewing of the recorded event. -- Some animal rights activists have maintained for years that animals deserve many of the same basic legal rights that humans have. Though “animal personhood” might be perceived as a niche issue, the legal status of animals such as apes, dolphins, elephants and whales reaches far beyond the realm of animal rights—to the food, pharmaceutical, tourism and entertainment industries and more. Recently, animal rights supporters have begun turning to the legal system for help. In late 2013, the animal rights organization Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in New York State to establish the “legal personhood” of four chimpanzees and relocate them to outdoor sanctuaries. While intermediate appellate courts have rejected the Nonhuman Rights Project’s argument, the group has publicly stated its intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court. -- These lawsuits were the first in the United States to seek limited personhood rights for animals with advanced cognitive abilities. At the core of the lawsuits are fundamental questions about the legal status of animals. Is the concept of animal rights more about the restriction of human activity, or about truly granting rights to animals? Do current animal welfare laws provide sufficient protections to animals? Should animals have the ability to challenge their own detention, though the writ of habeas corpus? -- Featuring: Prof. Richard L. Cupp, John W. Wade Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law and Mr. Steven M. Wise, President, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit01:11:10noGovernment Regulation in the Sharing Economy 1-24-2015<p><strong>2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/government-regulation-in-the-sharing-economy-event-audio" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20150210_AbstractBusinessmaninRedtape360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>In the innovation economy, entrants often confront increased regulatory hurdles, particularly on a state level, as they enter the marketplace and disrupt previously tightly regulated industries, such as hospitality and transportation. In California, for example, legislators have proposed rigorous insurance requirements, drug testing, and new background checks on Uber and Lyft drivers that traditional taxicab drivers do not face. Airbnb faces scrutiny in New York, with critics accusing it of violating rent control laws by creating an underground rental market, threatening public safety and driving up rental prices. In New Jersey, Tesla sales have been shut down after licensing restrictions prevented direct-to-consumer sales of electric vehicles, bypassing franchised dealers. While the entrants contend that these restrictions only serve to restrain competition and protect special entrenched interests, the critics maintain that consumer protection and maintaining a level playing field are the true goals in their regulatory policies. What’s the proper balance between innovation and regulation? Will these new entrants incentivize innovation or will existing regulatory capture only succeed in maintaining the status quo? Are state regulations the greatest impediment to innovation, or do federal regulations also impede progress?</p><p> This panel was part of the 2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference held on January 24, 2015, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Evan Baehr</strong>, Co-founder, Outbox and Co-founder, Able Lending</li><li><strong>Prof. Jordan Barry</strong>, Herzog Endowed Scholar and Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law</li><li><strong>Katie Biber Chen</strong>, Senior Counsel, Airbnb </li><li><strong>Andrea Ambrose Lobato</strong>, Policy Counsel, Lyft</li><li><strong>Prof. Stephen Miller</strong>, University of Idaho School of Law </li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. Carlos Bea</strong>, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. David DeGroot,</strong> Special Counsel, Sheppard Mullin Richter &amp; Hampton LLP and President, San Francisco Lawyers Chapter</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library<br /> Simi Valley, CA</p>10 Feb 2015 22:21:11 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/government-regulation-in-the-sharing-economy-event-audio
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150210_SharingEconomy1242015.mp32015 Annual Western Chapters ConferenceIn the innovation economy, entrants often confront increased regulatory hurdles, particularly on a state level, as they enter the marketplace and disrupt previously tightly regulated industries, such as hospitality and transportation. In California, for example, legislators have proposed rigorous insurance requirements, drug testing, and new background checks on Uber and Lyft drivers that traditional taxicab drivers do not face. Airbnb faces scrutiny in New York, with critics accusing it of violating rent control laws by creating an underground rental market, threatening public safety and driving up rental prices. In New Jersey, Tesla sales have been shut down after licensing restrictions prevented direct-to-consumer sales of electric vehicles, bypassing franchised dealers. While the entrants contend that these restrictions only serve to restrain competition and protect special entrenched interests, the critics maintain that consumer protection and maintaining a level playing field are the true goals in their regulatory policies. What’s the proper balance between innovation and regulation? Will these new entrants incentivize innovation or will existing regulatory capture only succeed in maintaining the status quo? Are state regulations the greatest impediment to innovation, or do federal regulations also impede progress? -- This panel was part of the 2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference held on January 24, 2015, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. -- Featuring: Evan Baehr, Co-founder, Outbox and Co-founder, Able Lending; Prof. Jordan Barry, Herzog Endowed Scholar and Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Katie Biber Chen, Senior Counsel, Airbnb; Andrea Ambrose Lobato, Policy Counsel, Lyft; and Prof. Stephen Miller, University of Idaho School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. David DeGroot, Special Counsel, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and President, San Francisco Lawyers Chapter.The Federalist Society01:47:08noAddress by John Allison 1-24-2015<p><strong>2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-john-allison-event-audio" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141014_JohnAllison.jpg" /></a> | John Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute, delivered the Keynote Address at the 2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference. He was introduced by Andrew Pappas, President of the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter. The annual conference was held at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 24, 2015.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. John Allison,</strong> President and CEO, Cato Institute and former CEO, BB&amp;T</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Andrew G. Pappas,</strong> Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher and President, Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library<br /> Simi Valley, CA</p>10 Feb 2015 22:18:50 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-john-allison-event-audio
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150210_AddressbyJohnAllison12415.mp32015 Annual Western Chapters ConferenceJohn Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute, delivered the Keynote Address at the 2015 Annual Western Chapters Conference. He was introduced by Andrew Pappas, President of the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter. The annual conference was held at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 24, 2015. -- Featuring: Mr. John Allison, President and CEO, Cato Institute and former CEO, BB&T. Introduction: Mr. Andrew G. Pappas, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and President, Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter.The Federalist Society51:21noThe Administrative State Within the Bounds of Law? 1-4-2015<p><strong>17th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-administrative-state-within-the-bounds-of-law-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20150112_lawdefinition360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>This panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Panel: The Administrative State: Within the Bounds of Law?</strong><br /><em>9:30-11:15 am</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Michael Greve, </strong>George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Philip Hamburger, </strong>Columbia Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Kristin Hickman,</strong> University of Minnesota Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Richard Pierce,</strong> The George Washington University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Prof. John McGinnis, </strong>Northwestern University School of Law</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Washington, DC<br /> January 4, 2015</p>12 Jan 2015 17:47:46 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-administrative-state-within-the-bounds-of-law-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150112_TheAdministrativeStateWithintheBoundsofLaw142015.mp317th Annual Faculty ConferenceThis panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Michael Greve, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law School; Prof. Kristin Hickman, University of Minnesota Law School; and Prof. Richard Pierce, The George Washington University School of Law. Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law.The Federalist Society01:44:05noThe Private Attorney General: Good or Bad 1-3-2015<p><strong>17th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-private-attorney-general-good-or-bad-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="143" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130110_gavelandscales.gif" width="201" /></a>This debate was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Debate: The Private Attorney General: Good or Bad</strong><br /><em>4:45-6:30 pm</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Lester Brickman,</strong> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick</strong>, Vanderbilt Law School</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Prof. Jill Fisch,</strong> University of Pennsylvania Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Washington, DC<br /> January 3, 2015</p>9 Jan 2015 21:37:19 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-private-attorney-general-good-or-bad-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150109_ThePrivateAttorneyGeneral132015.mp317th Annual Faculty ConferenceThis debate was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Lester Brickman, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, Vanderbilt Law School. Moderator: Prof. Jill Fisch, University of Pennsylvania Law School.The Federalist Society01:36:54noYoung Legal Scholars Paper Presentations 1-3-2015<p><strong>17th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/young-legal-scholars-paper-presentations-event-audiovideo-6" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="167" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141125_lawbooksandscales200x167.jpg" width="200" /></a>This panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations</strong><br /><em>2:30-4:30 pm<br />In Memory of Prof. Dan Markel, Florida State University School of Law, Prawfsblawg Founder, and former Searle fellow</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. William Baude,</strong> University of Chicago Law School, &quot;Is Originalism the Law?&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Charles Korsmo,</strong> Case Western University School of Law, &quot;Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Minor Myers, </strong>Brooklyn Law School, &quot;Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Christopher Newman, </strong>George Mason University School of Law, &quot;Bailment and the Property/Contract Interface&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Christopher Walker,</strong> Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, &quot;Inside Agency Interpretation&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Kevin Walsh, </strong>University of Richmond School of Law, &quot;In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions&quot;</li><li><strong><em>Commentor:</em> Prof. James Lindgren,</strong> Northwestern University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Commentor: </em>Prof. Keith Hylton, </strong>Boston University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Prof. Richard Garnett, </strong>University of Notre Dame Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Washington, DC<br /> January 3, 2015</p>9 Jan 2015 21:32:53 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/young-legal-scholars-paper-presentations-event-audiovideo-6
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150109_YoungLegalScholarsPaperPresentations132015.mp317th Annual Faculty ConferenceThis panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. In Memory of Prof. Dan Markel, Florida State University School of Law, Prawfsblawg Founder, and former Searle fellow. -- Featuring: Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School, "Is Originalism the Law?"; Prof. Charles Korsmo, Case Western University School of Law, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"'; Prof. Minor Myers, Brooklyn Law School, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"; Prof. Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, "Bailment and the Property/Contract Interface"; Prof. Christopher Walker, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, "Inside Agency Interpretation"; and Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond School of Law, "In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions". Commentators: Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law and Prof. Keith Hylton, Boston University School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Richard Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School.The Federalist Society01:49:26noAffordable Care Act Subsidies Debate 1-3-2015<p><strong>17th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/affordable-care-act-subsidies-debate-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="135" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20120322_healthcare.gif" width="201" /></a>This debate was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Debate: Resolved, that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges</strong><br /><em>12:30-2:30 pm</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan Adler, </strong>Case Western Reserve University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Nick Bagley,</strong> University of Michigan School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, </strong>Georgetown University Law Center</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Washington, DC<br /> January 3, 2015</p>9 Jan 2015 21:31:01 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/affordable-care-act-subsidies-debate-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150109_AffordableCareActSubsidiesDebate132015.mp317th Annual Faculty ConferenceThis debate was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. Resolved, that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Prof. Nick Bagley, University of Michigan School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center.The Federalist Society01:32:19noThe Executive Power to Not Enforce the Law 1-3-2015<p><strong>17th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-executive-power-to-not-enforce-the-law-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="141" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140514_WhiteHousestormbw2.jpg" width="200" /></a>This panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Welcome</strong><br /><em>9:00 am-9:15 am</em></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, </strong>Senior Vice President &amp; Director, Faculty Division</li><li><strong>Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez,</strong> President, Association of American Law Schools &amp; Dean, Northwestern Law School</li></ul><p><strong>Panel: The Executive Power to Not Enforce the Law</strong><br /><em>9:00-10:45 am</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. John Harrison,</strong> University of Virginia School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Gillian Metzger,</strong> Columbia Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Zachary Price,</strong> University of California Hastings College of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, </strong>Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Prof. Tara Grove,</strong> William &amp; Mary Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Washington, DC<br /> January 3, 2015</p>9 Jan 2015 21:28:28 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-executive-power-to-not-enforce-the-law-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20150109_TheExecutivePowertoNotEnforcetheLaw132015.mp317th Annual Faculty ConferenceThis panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. Gillian Metzger, Columbia Law School; Prof. Zachary Price, University of California Hastings College of Law; and Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Prof. Tara Grove, William & Mary Law School. Introduction and Welcome by Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division and Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, President, Association of American Law Schools & Dean, Northwestern Law School.The Federalist Society01:43:09noThe Criminalization of Politics 12-11-2014<p><strong>Criminal Law &amp; Procedure Practice Group</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-criminalization-of-politics-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="75" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_handcuffsandgavel640x240.jpg" width="200" /></a>What actions are political and what actions are criminal? Where should prosecutors and courts draw the lines? How should we decide what actions should be evaluated at the ballot box and what actions should be evaluated in a court of law? This panel will discuss the recent use of criminal law to pursue public officials and political activity. A presentation of former high level Justice Department attorneys will look to recent prosecutions, such as those of Bob McDonnell and John Edwards, to evaluate whether our criminal law is wading too deeply into political activity. Relying on their expertise, the panelists will address a number of federal crimes, like Honest Services Fraud, used to pursue politicians, and discuss whether it is wise to put politics on trial, or whether the voters should decide.</p><p> The Criminal Law &amp; Procedure Practice Group hosted this event on December 11, 2014, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Todd P. Graves</strong>, Graves Garrett LLC</li><li><strong>Mr. Edward T. Kang</strong>, Partner, Alston &amp; Bird LLP</li><li><strong>Mr. John C. Richter</strong>, Partner, King &amp; Spalding</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: Mr. </em>John G. Malcolm</strong>, Chairman, Federalist Society Criminal Law &amp; Procedure Practice Group Executive Committee, and Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>15 Dec 2014 22:52:41 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-criminalization-of-politics-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141215_TheCriminalizationofPolitics121114.mp3Criminal Law & Procedure Practice GroupWhat actions are political and what actions are criminal? Where should prosecutors and courts draw the lines? How should we decide what actions should be evaluated at the ballot box and what actions should be evaluated in a court of law? This panel will discuss the recent use of criminal law to pursue public officials and political activity. A presentation of former high level Justice Department attorneys will look to recent prosecutions, such as those of Bob McDonnell and John Edwards, to evaluate whether our criminal law is wading too deeply into political activity. Relying on their expertise, the panelists will address a number of federal crimes, like Honest Services Fraud, used to pursue politicians, and discuss whether it is wise to put politics on trial, or whether the voters should decide. -- The Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted this event on December 11, 2014, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Todd P. Graves, Graves Garrett LLC; Mr. Edward T. Kang, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP; and Mr. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding. Moderator: Moderator: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Chairman, Federalist Society Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Executive Committee, and Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.The Federalist Society01:33:44noKeynote Address by Richard Epstein 12-2-2014<p><strong>Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-richard-epstein-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20100527_RichardEpstein.jpg" /></a>Prof. Richard Epstein delivered the Keynote Address during a conference titled &quot;Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues&quot;. The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Dean A. Reuter, Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society.</p>4 Dec 2014 23:15:21 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-richard-epstein-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141203_KeynoteAddressbyRichardEpstein1222014.mp3Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current IssuesProf. Richard Epstein delivered the Keynote Address during a conference titled "Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues". The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society.The Federalist Society52:12noBalancing Patent Rights and Litigation Abuses 12-2-2014<p><strong>Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/balancing-patent-rights-and-litigation-abuses-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141204_patentlaw200x167.jpg" /></a>Policy makers on Capitol Hill are poised to press forward with legislation thatpurports to address what some believe is a litigation crisis, driven by so-called non-practicing entities. Others believe the legislation would ultimately undermine important property rights and patent licensing arrangements. The latter group asserts that a growing body of empirical evidence holds that patent litigation rates have not increased significantly and in fact appear to be on the decline. Will the proposed patent legislation address real litigation abuses, and what effect will it have on legitimate patent holders? Is there a responsible way to address patent litigation abuses without hampering patent-based incentives to invest in innovation? What do the answers to these questions mean for the United States efforts to promote strong IP laws abroad?</p><p> This panel was part of a conference titled &quot;Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues&quot;. The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. F. Scott Kieff,</strong> Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission</li><li><strong>Mr. Noah Phillips, </strong>Chief Counsel, U.S. Senator John Cornyn at Senate Judiciary Committee</li><li><strong>Prof. Adam Mossoff,</strong> Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Dean A. Reuter,</strong> Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>4 Dec 2014 23:13:38 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/balancing-patent-rights-and-litigation-abuses-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141203_BalancingPatentRightsandLitigationAbuses1222014.mp3Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current IssuesPolicy makers on Capitol Hill are poised to press forward with legislation thatpurports to address what some believe is a litigation crisis, driven by so-called non-practicing entities. Others believe the legislation would ultimately undermine important property rights and patent licensing arrangements. The latter group asserts that a growing body of empirical evidence holds that patent litigation rates have not increased significantly and in fact appear to be on the decline. Will the proposed patent legislation address real litigation abuses, and what effect will it have on legitimate patent holders? Is there a responsible way to address patent litigation abuses without hampering patent-based incentives to invest in innovation? What do the answers to these questions mean for the United States efforts to promote strong IP laws abroad? -- This panel was part of a conference titled "Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues". The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission; Mr. Noah Phillips, Chief Counsel, U.S. Senator John Cornyn at Senate Judiciary Committee; and Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:10:12noThe Regulatory Reach of the FTC, at its International Implications 12-2-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-regulatory-reach-of-the-ftc-at-its-international-implications-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141204_FTCbuilding200x167.jpg" /></a>Parity between the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and real property is a core principle of the DOJ/FTC 1995 Guidelines on licensing patents, which provide that the &ldquo;[a]gencies apply the same general antitrust principles to conduct involving intellectual property that they apply to conduct involving any other form of tangible or intangible property.” Are these guidelines still being followed, or have the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have taken actions that signal a departure, and perhaps a skepticism about patent licensing activity, particularly with respect to technological standards? Under either scenario, what are the implications for innovative U.S. companies at home and abroad, including in China where regulators are using antimonopoly powers to extract commercial concessions from U.S. technology leaders? How can patent rights and competition policiesbest co-exist while preserving incentives for firms to invest in R&amp;D and disseminate patented technologies through licensing, standard setting, and other voluntary arrangements?</p><p> This panel was part of a conference titled &quot;Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues&quot;. The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Alden F. Abbott, </strong>Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; former Director of Patent and Antitrust Strategy, BlackBerry</li><li><strong>Hon. Joshua D. Wright, </strong>Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission</li><li><strong>Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel,</strong> former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Dean A. Reuter,</strong> Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>4 Dec 2014 23:11:12 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-regulatory-reach-of-the-ftc-at-its-international-implications-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141203_TheRegulatoryReachoftheFTC1222014.mp3Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current IssuesParity between the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and real property is a core principle of the DOJ/FTC 1995 Guidelines on licensing patents, which provide that the “[a]gencies apply the same general antitrust principles to conduct involving intellectual property that they apply to conduct involving any other form of tangible or intangible property.” Are these guidelines still being followed, or have the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have taken actions that signal a departure, and perhaps a skepticism about patent licensing activity, particularly with respect to technological standards? Under either scenario, what are the implications for innovative U.S. companies at home and abroad, including in China where regulators are using antimonopoly powers to extract commercial concessions from U.S. technology leaders? How can patent rights and competition policiesbest co-exist while preserving incentives for firms to invest in R&D and disseminate patented technologies through licensing, standard setting, and other voluntary arrangements? -- This panel was part of a conference titled "Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues". The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Alden F. Abbott, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; former Director of Patent and Antitrust Strategy, BlackBerry and Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:08:20noSaving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the states & Empowering Their People 11-15-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/saving-congress-from-itself-emancipating-the-states-empowering-their-people-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_SavingCongressfromItself.jpg" width="251" /></a><em>Saving Congress from Itself</em> proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this closing discussion on &quot;Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States &amp; Empowering Their People&quot; on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. James L. Buckley,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (ret.) and former U.S. Senator</li><li><strong>Dr. John C. Eastman,</strong> Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University</li><li><strong>Prof. Michael S. Greve, </strong>Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Robert R. Gasaway,</strong> Partner, Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:52:34 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/saving-congress-from-itself-emancipating-the-states-empowering-their-people-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_SavingCongressfromItself11152014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionSaving Congress from Itself proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this closing discussion on "Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States & Empowering Their People" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (ret.) and former U.S. Senator; Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Robert R. Gasaway, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.The Federalist Society59:55noShowcase Panel IV: ROUNDTABLE: Is the Future of the American Dream Bright? 11-15-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-iv-roundtable-is-the-future-of-the-american-dream-bright-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_2014NLCmillenials.jpg" width="250" /></a>America has always been a forward-looking country. What is the future for our young – for the best and brightest – and for everyone else? Does the American Dream still apply? Does our current legal and regulatory system offer the young prospects for a more just and better society, or for an overregulated society that stifles enterprise and compromises individual liberty? How do we balance these competing concerns and what role can and should our legal system play? Finally, there has been much discussion recently about income inequality. Are efforts to address that through law or taxes beneficial or harmful to the young and their vision of a better society?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on &quot;Is the Future of the American Dream Bright?&quot; on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Rachel L. Brand,</strong> Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice</li><li><strong>Hon. Lanny J. Davis,</strong> Principal, Lanny J. Davis &amp; Associates, former Special Counsel to the President, and former Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board</li><li><strong>Prof. Neal K. Katyal,</strong> Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law and Director, Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Partner, HoganLovells US LLP, and former Acting U.S. Solicitor General</li><li><strong>Dr. Charles A. Murray, </strong>W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Ms. Karlyn Bowman, </strong>Senior Fellow and Research Coordinator, American Enterprise Institute</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:41:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-iv-roundtable-is-the-future-of-the-american-dream-bright-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_ShowcasePanel411152014.mp3Showcase Panel IV: ROUNDTABLE: Is the Future of the American Dream Bright? 11-15-2014America has always been a forward-looking country. What is the future for our young – for the best and brightest – and for everyone else? Does the American Dream still apply? Does our current legal and regulatory system offer the young prospects for a more just and better society, or for an overregulated society that stifles enterprise and compromises individual liberty? How do we balance these competing concerns and what role can and should our legal system play? Finally, there has been much discussion recently about income inequality. Are efforts to address that through law or taxes beneficial or harmful to the young and their vision of a better society? -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Is the Future of the American Dream Bright?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice; Hon. Lanny J. Davis, Principal, Lanny J. Davis & Associates, former Special Counsel to the President, and former Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law and Director, Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Partner, HoganLovells US LLP, and former Acting U.S. Solicitor General; and Dr. Charles A. Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. Moderator: Ms. Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow and Research Coordinator, American Enterprise Institute.The Federalist Society01:25:27noSeventh Annual Rosenkranz Debate - RESOLVED: Indiscriminate Collection of American Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment 11-15-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/seventh-annual-rosenkranz-debate-resolved-indiscriminate-collection-of-american-phone-records-violates-the-fourth-amendment-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_2014RosenkranzDebate.jpg" width="250" /></a>The Seventh Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 15, 2014, during The Federalist Society's 2014 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: Indiscriminate Collection of American Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Michael B. Mukasey,</strong> Partner, Debevoise &amp; Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General</li><li><strong>Prof. Nadine Strossen,</strong> Professor of Law, New York Law School, and former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991 - 2008</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,</strong> Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Eugene B. Meyer,</strong> President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:39:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/seventh-annual-rosenkranz-debate-resolved-indiscriminate-collection-of-american-phone-records-violates-the-fourth-amendment-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_SeventhAnnualRosenkranzDebateCollectionofAmericanPhoneRecords11152014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThe Seventh Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 15, 2014, during The Federalist Society's 2014 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: Indiscriminate Collection of American Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment. -- Featuring: Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General and Prof. Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School, and former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991 - 2008. Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:10:11no“The Dog Ate My Emails!”: Document Retention Policies, Litigation Holds, and Legal Ethics 11-15-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-dog-ate-my-emails-document-retention-policies-litigation-holds-and-legal-ethics-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_harddrivebeingerased640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>Once upon a time, corporations, government departments, and other entities made their own decisions about how long to retain documents created or received in the course of business. Today, document retention policies can present difficult issues for the entities, for the lawyers who advise them, and for the courts that are called on to decide the consequences when documents are no longer available. Particularly in the electronic age, where computers die, people delete their emails, and backups are not always reliable, document retention cannot be counted on. What are an attorney’s obligations? Should a lawyer bringing suit write to the other side and warn that entity not to engage in normal document destruction and to back up particularly important data? Does the company being sued have to comply? These are some of the questions that the panel will address.</p><p> In-house lawyers may face particular difficulties. Does the lawyer represent only the institution, or does the lawyer also have obligations to the employees? Should the lawyer advise the employees to censor themselves in emails sent via the employer’s email system? Should employees be encouraged to communicate about work through their personal email instead? How does an in-house lawyer handle the conflicts between representing individuals who do not want to disclose discoverable emails for emails unrelated to ongoing litigation (perhaps because they made impolitic comments about their supervisors)?</p><p> Finally, the panel will discuss if there are special obligations for counsel representing government entities. Government records have a unique status. They document the conduct of public business and are necessary for transparency and, more formally, are subject to retention and preservation requirements. Should lawyers advise government clients that backups cannot be destroyed for years, contrary to current IRS policy? Should lawyers inform government employees that their personal emails, if discussing issues related to their work, may also be discoverable? How does the government’s duty of transparency to the public affect its disclosure obligations and the lawyer’s corresponding obligations to her client?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility &amp; Legal Education Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;'The Dog Ate My Emails!': Document Retention Policies, Litigation Holds, and Legal Ethics on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Jamie Brown, </strong>Global eDiscovery Counsel, UBS AG, and former Associate General Counsel, Commodities Futures Trading Commission</li><li><strong>Mr. Daniel Epstein,</strong> Executive Director, Cause of Action</li><li><strong>Mr. Patrick Oot,</strong> Partner, Shook Hardy &amp; Bacon L.L.P., and former Senior Special Counsel for Electronic Discovery Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission</li><li><strong>Mrs. Victoria A. Redgrave,</strong> Managing Partner, Redgrave LLP</li><li><strong>Ms. Julie Goldsmith Reiser,</strong> Partner, Cohen Milstein Sellers &amp; Toll PLLC</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Jerry Smith,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Jack J. Park Jr.,</strong> Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP; and Chairman, Professional Responsibility &amp; Legal Education Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:36:15 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-dog-ate-my-emails-document-retention-policies-litigation-holds-and-legal-ethics-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_TheDogAteMyEmails11152014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionOnce upon a time, corporations, government departments, and other entities made their own decisions about how long to retain documents created or received in the course of business. Today, document retention policies can present difficult issues for the entities, for the lawyers who advise them, and for the courts that are called on to decide the consequences when documents are no longer available. Particularly in the electronic age, where computers die, people delete their emails, and backups are not always reliable, document retention cannot be counted on. What are an attorney’s obligations? Should a lawyer bringing suit write to the other side and warn that entity not to engage in normal document destruction and to back up particularly important data? Does the company being sued have to comply? These are some of the questions that the panel will address. -- In-house lawyers may face particular difficulties. Does the lawyer represent only the institution, or does the lawyer also have obligations to the employees? Should the lawyer advise the employees to censor themselves in emails sent via the employer’s email system? Should employees be encouraged to communicate about work through their personal email instead? How does an in-house lawyer handle the conflicts between representing individuals who do not want to disclose discoverable emails for emails unrelated to ongoing litigation (perhaps because they made impolitic comments about their supervisors)? -- Finally, the panel will discuss if there are special obligations for counsel representing government entities. Government records have a unique status. They document the conduct of public business and are necessary for transparency and, more formally, are subject to retention and preservation requirements. Should lawyers advise government clients that backups cannot be destroyed for years, contrary to current IRS policy? Should lawyers inform government employees that their personal emails, if discussing issues related to their work, may also be discoverable? How does the government’s duty of transparency to the public affect its disclosure obligations and the lawyer’s corresponding obligations to her client? -- The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group presented this panel on "'The Dog Ate My Emails!': Document Retention Policies, Litigation Holds, and Legal Ethics on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Jamie Brown, Global eDiscovery Counsel, UBS AG, and former Associate General Counsel, Commodities Futures Trading Commission; Mr. Daniel Epstein, Executive Director, Cause of Action; Mr. Patrick Oot, Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., and former Senior Special Counsel for Electronic Discovery Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Mrs. Victoria A. Redgrave, Managing Partner, Redgrave LLP; and Ms. Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Partner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Moderator: Hon. Jerry Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Jack J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP; and Chairman, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:28:33noDo the EPA’s CO2 Rules Go Too Far? 11-15-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/do-the-epas-co2-rules-go-too-far-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_EPAsign640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>On June 2, 2014, the Obama Administration took action that would require a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030. Some industry representatives and state officials contend that the goals are unattainable, and the required shut-down of even a fraction of the coal-burning power plants required will put several power grids at risk, particularly during the upcoming winter season. Regulators site cost-benefit claims of seven to one – that is, for every dollar expended on compliance, seven dollars will be saved in other areas, largely health care. Are the rules likely to be finalized? If so, how must such reductions be accomplished? How much latitude will states and private actors have in meeting the new requirements?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Environmental Law &amp; Property Rights Practice Groups presented this panel on &quot;Do the EPA’s CO2 Rules Go Too Far?&quot; on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Paul Bailey,</strong> Senior Vice President for Federal Affairs and Policy, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</li><li><strong>Mr. Elbert Lin,</strong> Solicitor General, State of West Virginia</li><li><strong>Prof. Robert Percival,</strong> Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Robert M. Sussman,</strong> Principal, Sussman &amp; Associates and former Senior Policy Counsel to EPA Administrator and EPA Deputy Administrator</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, </strong>U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:34:03 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/do-the-epas-co2-rules-go-too-far-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_DotheEPAsCO2RulesGoTooFar11152014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionOn June 2, 2014, the Obama Administration took action that would require a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030. Some industry representatives and state officials contend that the goals are unattainable, and the required shut-down of even a fraction of the coal-burning power plants required will put several power grids at risk, particularly during the upcoming winter season. Regulators site cost-benefit claims of seven to one – that is, for every dollar expended on compliance, seven dollars will be saved in other areas, largely health care. Are the rules likely to be finalized? If so, how must such reductions be accomplished? How much latitude will states and private actors have in meeting the new requirements? -- The Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Groups presented this panel on "Do the EPA’s CO2 Rules Go Too Far?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Paul Bailey, Senior Vice President for Federal Affairs and Policy, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; Mr. Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, State of West Virginia; Prof. Robert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; and Mr. Robert M. Sussman, Principal, Sussman & Associates and former Senior Policy Counsel to EPA Administrator and EPA Deputy Administrator. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.The Federalist Society01:27:04noWithout Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks? 11-15-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/without-standing-are-we-all-sitting-ducks-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_gavellawbook640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>For a federal court to consider an issue, there must be a case or controversy, and the parties before the court must have standing, i.e., a stake in the outcome of the decision. While standing is important in our system of justice, the courts are not the only avenue for relief (the ballot box, theoretically, being another). This panel will explore the history, development and current status of standing doctrine in regulatory litigation, with particular focus on the extent to which standing and related justiciability requirements have come to serve as a shield against meaningful judicial review of agency actions.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Administrative Law &amp; Regulation Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Without Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks?&quot; on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan H. Adler,</strong> Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Amanda Cohen Leiter,</strong> Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law </li><li><strong>Mr. Robert N. Weiner,</strong> Partner, Arnold &amp; Porter LLP</li><li><strong>Mr. Patrick Wyrick,</strong> Solicitor General, State of Oklahoma</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. A Raymond Randolph,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Hon. Eileen O'Connor, </strong>Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; and Chairman, Administrative Law &amp; Regulation Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 21:05:25 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/without-standing-are-we-all-sitting-ducks-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_WithoutStandingAreWeAllSittingDucks11152014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionFor a federal court to consider an issue, there must be a case or controversy, and the parties before the court must have standing, i.e., a stake in the outcome of the decision. While standing is important in our system of justice, the courts are not the only avenue for relief (the ballot box, theoretically, being another). This panel will explore the history, development and current status of standing doctrine in regulatory litigation, with particular focus on the extent to which standing and related justiciability requirements have come to serve as a shield against meaningful judicial review of agency actions. -- The Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group presented this panel on "Without Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Prof. Amanda Cohen Leiter, Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law; Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP; and Mr. Patrick Wyrick, Solicitor General, State of Oklahoma. Moderator: Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Eileen O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; and Chairman, Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:25:11noShowcase Panel III: Higher Education: Run for the Benefit of Students or Faculty or Administrators? 11-15-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p style="text-align:center;"><em><strong>**Due to technical difficulties, the first 20 minutes of this panel were not recorded.**</strong></em></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-iii-higher-education-run-for-the-benefit-of-students-or-faculty-or-administrators-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_2014NLCmillenials.jpg" width="250" /></a>Success in today’s global economy virtually requires a college or post graduate degree, but colleges and law schools have raised tuition enormously. The government subsidizes students to take huge loans to pay for college and law schools, loans which inflict an increasing burden on students, including law students, in a troubled economy. Do these loans pay as much for faculty research and administrators as for direct student education? Are faculties producing research that justifies these costs? Are students getting a good deal now? Could or will on line education provide students with similar education at a fraction of the cost? Is it time to ask some hard questions about higher education? Does education policy benefit average and below average students or does it merely benefit the top of the class? This panel will focus to a significant degree on law schools.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on &quot;Higher Education: Run for the Benefit of Students or Faculty or Administrators?&quot; on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Paul F. Campos,</strong> University of Colorado Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Daniel Polsby,</strong> Dean and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Richard Kent Vedder,</strong> Ohio University</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, </strong>(retired), The George Washington University Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p><p style="text-align:center;"><em><strong>**Due to technical difficulties, the first 20 minutes of this panel were not recorded.**</strong></em></p>19 Nov 2014 21:02:50 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-iii-higher-education-run-for-the-benefit-of-students-or-faculty-or-administrators-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_ShowcasePanel311152014.mp32014 National Lawyers Convention**Due to technical difficulties, the first 20 minutes of this panel were not recorded.** Success in today’s global economy virtually requires a college or post graduate degree, but colleges and law schools have raised tuition enormously. The government subsidizes students to take huge loans to pay for college and law schools, loans which inflict an increasing burden on students, including law students, in a troubled economy. Do these loans pay as much for faculty research and administrators as for direct student education? Are faculties producing research that justifies these costs? Are students getting a good deal now? Could or will on line education provide students with similar education at a fraction of the cost? Is it time to ask some hard questions about higher education? Does education policy benefit average and below average students or does it merely benefit the top of the class? This panel will focus to a significant degree on law schools. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Higher Education: Run for the Benefit of Students or Faculty or Administrators?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Paul F. Campos, University of Colorado Law School; Prof. Daniel Polsby, Dean and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; and Prof. Richard Kent Vedder, Ohio University. Moderator: Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, (retired), The George Washington University Law School.The Federalist Society01:05:48no14th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/14th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="93" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_2014BKOLectureimage.jpg" width="250" /></a>On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2014, Mr. John Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute, delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. John A. Allison,</strong> President and CEO, Cato Institute; former Chairman and CEO, BB&amp;T Corporation</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, </strong>President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p><p style="text-align:center;"> For information about Barbara Olson and this lecture series, click <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/events/page/barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture-series" title="Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture">HERE</a>.</p><p style="text-align:center;"> For a list of past lecturers, click <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/events/page/barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture-past-lecturers" title="Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture">HERE</a>.</p>19 Nov 2014 21:01:04 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/14th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_2014BarbaraKOlsonMemorialLecture11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionOn September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2014, Mr. John Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute, delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.The Federalist Society43:56noWho Defines International Law? 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/who-defines-international-law-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_scalesandworldflags640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>This panel will consider the process for determining the content of international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law. The International Committee of the Red Cross and other committees established by multilateral human rights conventions are often thought to enjoy a special competence in this process. Should they? The panel will discuss these questions, including the debate between the ICRC and the U.S. on counterterrorism measures and the legality of bulk surveillance for national security purposes.</p><p> The Federalist Society's International &amp; National Security Law Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Who Defines International Law?&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. John B. Bellinger, III,</strong> Partner, Arnold &amp; Porter LLP, former Legal Adviser to the Department of State, former Senior Associate Counsel to the President, and former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council</li><li><strong>Prof. Ryan Goodman,</strong> Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law, New York University School of Law </li><li><strong>Prof. Michael W. Lewis,</strong> Ella A. and Ernest H. Fisher Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University</li><li><strong>Prof. Deborah Pearlstein,</strong> Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. John Choon Yoo,</strong> Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Carlos T. Bea,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Prof. John O. McGinnis,</strong> George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:58:18 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/who-defines-international-law-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_WhoDefinesInternationalLaw11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThis panel will consider the process for determining the content of international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law. The International Committee of the Red Cross and other committees established by multilateral human rights conventions are often thought to enjoy a special competence in this process. Should they? The panel will discuss these questions, including the debate between the ICRC and the U.S. on counterterrorism measures and the legality of bulk surveillance for national security purposes. -- The Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group presented this panel on "Who Defines International Law?" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP, former Legal Adviser to the Department of State, former Senior Associate Counsel to the President, and former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council; Prof. Ryan Goodman, Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Michael W. Lewis, Ella A. and Ernest H. Fisher Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University; Prof. Deborah Pearlstein, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; and Prof. John Choon Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Introduction: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law.The Federalist Society01:22:36noHow First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/how-first-amendment-procedures-protect-first-amendment-substance-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_censoredspeech640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>While the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that give them teeth – or defang them. From the landmark case of <em>New York Times</em> v. <em>Sullivan</em> to the recently decided <em>Susan B. Anthony List</em> v. <em>Driehaus</em>, the procedures required before one can burden speech, or raise a successful defense under the First Amendment, are critical to the effective scope of the constitutional right. This panel will explore the various procedural safeguards applied – or not applied – in the context of the Freedom of Speech. What level of proof is required before speech may be restricted based on an otherwise valid interest? When will a private party have standing to challenge a restriction on speech that may not yet be final but that has immediate adverse consequences, such as requiring a party to defend an investigation or rebut a preliminary government finding in the midst of an election campaign? What safeguards should exist in administrative processes, such as IRS tax exemption rulings, where discretion may be used to punish speech or otherwise favor one viewpoint over another? These and other examples all illustrate that even where the substance of First Amendment rights is well established, procedural loopholes or protections can reduce or enhance the effectiveness of those rights.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Free Speech &amp; Election Law Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Aaron H. Caplan,</strong> Loyola Law School, Los Angeles</li><li><strong>Prof. Robert A. Destro,</strong> The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Todd P. Graves,</strong> Graves Garrett LLC</li><li><strong>Prof. Alan B. Morrison,</strong> Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Eugene Volokh,</strong> Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. David R. Stras,</strong> Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Erik S. Jaffe,</strong> Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC; and Chairman, Free Speech &amp; Election Law Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:44:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/how-first-amendment-procedures-protect-first-amendment-substance-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_HowFirstAmendmentProceduresProtectFirstAmendmentSubstance11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionWhile the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that give them teeth – or defang them. From the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan to the recently decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the procedures required before one can burden speech, or raise a successful defense under the First Amendment, are critical to the effective scope of the constitutional right. This panel will explore the various procedural safeguards applied – or not applied – in the context of the Freedom of Speech. What level of proof is required before speech may be restricted based on an otherwise valid interest? When will a private party have standing to challenge a restriction on speech that may not yet be final but that has immediate adverse consequences, such as requiring a party to defend an investigation or rebut a preliminary government finding in the midst of an election campaign? What safeguards should exist in administrative processes, such as IRS tax exemption rulings, where discretion may be used to punish speech or otherwise favor one viewpoint over another? These and other examples all illustrate that even where the substance of First Amendment rights is well established, procedural loopholes or protections can reduce or enhance the effectiveness of those rights. -- The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group presented this panel on "How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Aaron H. Caplan, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Prof. Robert A. Destro, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law; Mr. Todd P. Graves, Graves Garrett LLC; Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC; and Chairman, Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:28:21noAddress by Senator Orrin Hatch 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-orrin-hatch-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141023_OrrinHatch.jpg" /></a>Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. He was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Orrin Hatch, </strong>U.S. Senate</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Leonard A. Leo,</strong> Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:43:32 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-orrin-hatch-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_AddressbySenatorOrrinHatch11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionSenator Orrin Hatch of Utah delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. He was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society46:29noAddress by Carly Fiorina 11-14-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-carly-fiorina-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141014_CarlyFiorina.jpg" /></a>Carly Fiorina delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. She was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mrs. Carly Fiorina, </strong>Fiorina Group</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Dean A. Reuter,</strong> Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:40:00 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/address-by-carly-fiorina-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_AddressbyCarlyFiorina11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionCarly Fiorina delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. She was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society32:43noCredit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand 11-14-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/credit-to-cronies-governments-heavyif-hiddenhand-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_transferofmoney640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>Key to a vibrant and increasingly productive economy is an efficient credit allocation process -- the mechanism by which all forms of credit, and not just bank loans, flow to those who can make the best use of that credit. Do government regulations influence and therefore distort – intentionally or not – the allocation of credit within the U.S. economy?</p><p> Bank capital and liquidity standards, consumer lending requirements, lending rules enforced by the Consumer Bureau, the Community Reinvestment Act, and government-sponsored enterprises (notably Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Farm Credit System) among other federal programs steer credit to favorites based on government priorities. Designating large financial firms as &ldquo;systemically important financial institutions” might diminish their role as independent credit providers and subject them to further government direction. Some argue that Federal Reserve monetary policy, which greatly influences all interest rates, has consequent credit-allocation effects. Where did this all come from, where is it going, and what it means for the future of the economy will be questions for the panel.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities &amp; Financial Services &amp; E-Commerce Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Credit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Edward J. DeMarco,</strong> Senior Fellow-in-Residence, Milken Institute</li><li><strong>Mr. Bert Ely,</strong> Principal, Ely &amp; Company, Inc.</li><li><strong>Dr. Paul H. Kupiec, </strong>Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Paul S. Atkins,</strong> Patomak Global Partners LLC; former Commissioner, U.S Securities &amp; Exchange</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy,</strong> Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association; and Chairman, Financial Services &amp; E-Commerce Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:37:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/credit-to-cronies-governments-heavyif-hiddenhand-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_CredittoCroniesGovernmentsHeavyIFHiddenHand11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionKey to a vibrant and increasingly productive economy is an efficient credit allocation process -- the mechanism by which all forms of credit, and not just bank loans, flow to those who can make the best use of that credit. Do government regulations influence and therefore distort – intentionally or not – the allocation of credit within the U.S. economy? -- Bank capital and liquidity standards, consumer lending requirements, lending rules enforced by the Consumer Bureau, the Community Reinvestment Act, and government-sponsored enterprises (notably Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Farm Credit System) among other federal programs steer credit to favorites based on government priorities. Designating large financial firms as “systemically important financial institutions” might diminish their role as independent credit providers and subject them to further government direction. Some argue that Federal Reserve monetary policy, which greatly influences all interest rates, has consequent credit-allocation effects. Where did this all come from, where is it going, and what it means for the future of the economy will be questions for the panel. -- The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group presented this panel on "Credit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Edward J. DeMarco, Senior Fellow-in-Residence, Milken Institute; Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.; and Dr. Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners LLC; former Commissioner, U.S Securities & Exchange. Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association; and Chairman, Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:30:37noCriminal Sentencing Reform: A Conversation among Conservatives 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/criminal-sentencing-reform-a-conversation-among-conservatives-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_handcuffsandgavel640x240.jpg" width="249" /></a>Although prison populations at the federal level have very recently declined for the first time in decades, prisoner population at the state level rose. The cost of crime, some that can be measured and some that are impossible to measure, is undoubtedly high, but so too is the cost of incarceration. Are we striking the right balance in length of sentences? And what is the proper balance between latitude and sentencing guidelines for judges? Do the answers to these questions differ for the state versus the federal criminal justice system?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Criminal Law &amp; Procedure Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Criminal Sentencing Reform: A Conversation among Conservatives&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Marc A. Levin,</strong> Director, Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation</li><li><strong>Mr. John G. Malcolm,</strong> Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong>Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, </strong>Partner, Debevoise &amp; Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General</li><li><strong>Prof. William G. Otis,</strong> Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr.,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:35:52 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/criminal-sentencing-reform-a-conversation-among-conservatives-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_CriminalSentencingReform11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionAlthough prison populations at the federal level have very recently declined for the first time in decades, prisoner population at the state level rose. The cost of crime, some that can be measured and some that are impossible to measure, is undoubtedly high, but so too is the cost of incarceration. Are we striking the right balance in length of sentences? And what is the proper balance between latitude and sentencing guidelines for judges? Do the answers to these questions differ for the state versus the federal criminal justice system? -- The Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group presented this panel on "Criminal Sentencing Reform: A Conversation among Conservatives" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Marc A. Levin, Director, Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General; and Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.The Federalist Society01:32:53noSexual Assault on Campus 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/sexual-assault-on-campus-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_university640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>Sexual assault on campus is a serious issue—so serious that it is difficult for some to speak plainly about it. As a result, disagreements abound—even about issues as fundamental as the definition of sexual assault. This panel will discuss the nature and extent of sexual assault on campus. It will examine the Department of Education’s &ldquo;Dear Colleague” letter of April 4, 2011 on sexual violence, the numerous investigations that it has opened in colleges and universities around the country, and the effect they are having on campus. It will also discuss the new &quot;Only Yes Means Yes,&quot; laws recently adopted in California and being considered around the country. Among the questions that will be addressed are: How dangerous are our college campuses? From where does the U.S. Department of Education derive the authority to address this issue? Is due process being accorded to those who are accused of sexual assault?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Sexual Assult on Campus&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Heather Mac Donald,</strong> Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute</li><li><strong>Mr. Seth Galanter,</strong> Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education</li><li><strong>Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann,</strong> Senior Counsel &amp; Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center</li><li><strong>Mr. Greg Lukianoff,</strong> President, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. Diane S. Sykes,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Hon. Gail Heriot, </strong>U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, University of San Diego School of Law; and Chairman, Civil Rights Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:34:05 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/sexual-assault-on-campus-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_SexualAssultonCampus11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionSexual assault on campus is a serious issue—so serious that it is difficult for some to speak plainly about it. As a result, disagreements abound—even about issues as fundamental as the definition of sexual assault. This panel will discuss the nature and extent of sexual assault on campus. It will examine the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter of April 4, 2011 on sexual violence, the numerous investigations that it has opened in colleges and universities around the country, and the effect they are having on campus. It will also discuss the new "Only Yes Means Yes," laws recently adopted in California and being considered around the country. Among the questions that will be addressed are: How dangerous are our college campuses? From where does the U.S. Department of Education derive the authority to address this issue? Is due process being accorded to those who are accused of sexual assault? -- The Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group presented this panel on "Sexual Assult on Campus" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Mr. Seth Galanter, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education; Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center; and Mr. Greg Lukianoff, President, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Moderator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, University of San Diego School of Law; and Chairman, Civil Rights Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:49:45noShowcase Panel II: Intergenerational Equity and Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Pensions 11-14-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-ii-intergenerational-equity-and-social-security-medicare-obamacare-and-pensions-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_2014NLCmillenials.jpg" width="251" /></a>Several major federal programs directly tax the young to provide benefits to the elderly. This is a main feature of the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security System as it currently works, and of the laws guaranteeing pensions. In addition, the national debt raises intergenerational equity issues. What obligations do these debts impose on the young? Are they all of a piece or are the answers different in each case? Is it true that this generation is likely to be poorer than the previous one? What role does our legal system play in this? How will the law address pensions that contribute to bankrupting cities or states? What is the nature of the Social Security contract?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on &quot;Intergenerational Equity and Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Pensions&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth,</strong> Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc., and former Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget</li><li><strong>Prof. John O. McGinnis,</strong> George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. David A. Weisbach,</strong> Walter J. Blum Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, The Computation Institute of the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, </strong>U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:32:05 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-ii-intergenerational-equity-and-social-security-medicare-obamacare-and-pensions-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_ShowcasePanel211142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionSeveral major federal programs directly tax the young to provide benefits to the elderly. This is a main feature of the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security System as it currently works, and of the laws guaranteeing pensions. In addition, the national debt raises intergenerational equity issues. What obligations do these debts impose on the young? Are they all of a piece or are the answers different in each case? Is it true that this generation is likely to be poorer than the previous one? What role does our legal system play in this? How will the law address pensions that contribute to bankrupting cities or states? What is the nature of the Social Security contract? -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Intergenerational Equity and Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Pensions" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc., and former Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. David A. Weisbach, Walter J. Blum Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, The Computation Institute of the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.The Federalist Society01:30:19noDiversity Jurisdiction from Strawbridge to CAFA 11-14-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/diversity-jurisdiction-from-strawbridge-to-cafa-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_courthouse640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>In a recent article, constitutional lawyer Charles Cooper argued that federal courts have erred by too narrowly construing their statutory grants of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Cooper urges the courts to recognize much broader federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship as a matter of both statutory and constitutional interpretation. Others have called on Congress to consider legislation that would expand federal courts' diversity jurisdiction to include all cases in which any two parties come from different states. Our panel will include members of the federal judiciary to discuss whether (and if so, how) federal court jurisdiction should be expanded.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this panel on &quot;Diversity Jurisdiction from <em>Strawbridge </em>to CAFA&quot; on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Charles J. Cooper,</strong> Partner, Cooper &amp; Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel</li><li><strong>Hon. Edith H. Jones,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit</li><li><strong>Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III,</strong> United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Dean A. Reuter, </strong>Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:30:11 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/diversity-jurisdiction-from-strawbridge-to-cafa-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141119_DiversityJurisdictionfromStrawbridgetoCAFA11142014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionIn a recent article, constitutional lawyer Charles Cooper argued that federal courts have erred by too narrowly construing their statutory grants of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Cooper urges the courts to recognize much broader federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship as a matter of both statutory and constitutional interpretation. Others have called on Congress to consider legislation that would expand federal courts' diversity jurisdiction to include all cases in which any two parties come from different states. Our panel will include members of the federal judiciary to discuss whether (and if so, how) federal court jurisdiction should be expanded. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this panel on "Diversity Jurisdiction from Strawbridge to CAFA" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; and Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:19:31noCompetition Policy in the Telecommunications Space 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/competition-policy-in-the-telecommunications-space-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_mobiledevices640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>In today’s rapidly evolving telecommunications landscape, the development of new technologies and distribution platforms are driving innovation and growth at a breakneck speed across the Internet ecosystem. Broadband connectivity is increasingly important to our civil discourse, our economy, and our future. What is the proper role of government in facilitating robust investment and competition in this critical sector? When technology companies constantly have to reinvent themselves and adapt to survive – what role should government play? Our panel of experts will discuss the current regulatory environment and how government policies – particularly regarding transactions and the Open Internet proceeding – could affect the competitive marketplace.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Telecommunications &amp; Electronic Media Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Competition Policy in the Telecommunications Space&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Gene Kimmelman, </strong>President and CEO, Public Knowledge</li><li><strong>Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen,</strong> Federal Trade Commission</li><li><strong>Hon. Michael O’Rielly,</strong> Federal Communications Commission</li><li><strong>Prof. Christopher S. Yoo,</strong> John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer &amp; Information Science, and Director, Center for Technology, Innovation &amp; Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Stephen F. Williams,</strong> Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:26:55 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/competition-policy-in-the-telecommunications-space-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_CompetitionPolicyintheTelecommunicationsSpace11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionIn today’s rapidly evolving telecommunications landscape, the development of new technologies and distribution platforms are driving innovation and growth at a breakneck speed across the Internet ecosystem. Broadband connectivity is increasingly important to our civil discourse, our economy, and our future. What is the proper role of government in facilitating robust investment and competition in this critical sector? When technology companies constantly have to reinvent themselves and adapt to survive – what role should government play? Our panel of experts will discuss the current regulatory environment and how government policies – particularly regarding transactions and the Open Internet proceeding – could affect the competitive marketplace. -- The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented this panel on "Competition Policy in the Telecommunications Space" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Gene Kimmelman, President and CEO, Public Knowledge; Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Federal Trade Commission; Hon. Michael O’Rielly, Federal Communications Commission; and Prof. Christopher S. Yoo, John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, and Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.The Federalist Society01:20:08noTime to Revisit Chevron Deference? 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/time-to-revisit-chevron-deference-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_gavel640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>This panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decisionmaking has evolved since the seminal Supreme Court decision in <em>Chevron v. NRDC </em>and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of &quot;<em>Chevron </em>deference.&quot; The panelists will discuss questions such as whether <em>Chevron</em>deference has led courts to take such a hands-off approach in litigation against agency action that the agencies have become an unaccountable fourth branch of government. Or is <em>Chevron </em>deference a doctrine that is necessary to keep courts from becoming policymaking bodies? They will discuss the real-world implications of <em>Chevron </em>deference from the perspective of regulated parties and whether there are any practical alternatives to <em>Chevron </em>deference. The panel will also explore related doctrines of judicial deference, such as so-called <em>Auer </em>deference, and whether lower courts have taken that deference beyond what the Supreme Court intended.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Time to Revisit Chevron Deference?&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Jack M. Beermann,</strong> Harry Elwood Warren Scholar Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law</li><li><strong>Hon. Charles J. Cooper,</strong> Partner, Cooper &amp; Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel</li><li><strong>Prof. Thomas W. Merrill,</strong> Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Amy Wildermuth,</strong> Associate Vice President for Faculty, Senior Vice President Academic Affairs - Operations, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Don R. Willett, </strong>Texas Supreme Court</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Hon. Rachel L. Brand, </strong>Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice; and Chairman, Litigation Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:24:33 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/time-to-revisit-chevron-deference-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_TimetoRevisitChevronDeference11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThis panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decisionmaking has evolved since the seminal Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. NRDC and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of "Chevron deference." The panelists will discuss questions such as whether Chevrondeference has led courts to take such a hands-off approach in litigation against agency action that the agencies have become an unaccountable fourth branch of government. Or is Chevron deference a doctrine that is necessary to keep courts from becoming policymaking bodies? They will discuss the real-world implications of Chevron deference from the perspective of regulated parties and whether there are any practical alternatives to Chevron deference. The panel will also explore related doctrines of judicial deference, such as so-called Auer deference, and whether lower courts have taken that deference beyond what the Supreme Court intended. -- The Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group presented this panel on "Time to Revisit Chevron Deference?" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Jack M. Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law; and Prof. Amy Wildermuth, Associate Vice President for Faculty, Senior Vice President Academic Affairs - Operations, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Don R. Willett, Texas Supreme Court. Introduction: Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice; and Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:25:19noThe President's Duty to Take Care that the Law Be Faithfully Executed 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-presidents-duty-to-take-care-that-the-law-be-faithfully-executed-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141117_Obamasigninglegislation640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>Is President Obama failing in this basic obligation of the President? Allegations of lawlessness have been made about his decisions not to enforce the immigration law, to suspend some requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and to flout Congress’s requirement of thirty-day notice before freeing prisoners from Guantanamo. Are these fair charges or does the President enjoy inherent constitutional power or specific statutory authority to decline enforcement? What should be Congress’s reaction to non-enforcement? Does this pattern of non-enforcement imply anything more general about the President’s legal or political philosophy?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Federalism &amp; Separation of Powers Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;The President's Duty to Take Care that the Law Be Faithfully Executed&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. </strong>Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Emeritus of Law, Dale E. Bennett Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Law School</li><li><strong>Hon. Ronald A. Cass,</strong> Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass &amp; Associates, PC</li><li><strong>Prof. Neal E. Devins,</strong> Goodrich Professor of Law, Cabell Research Professor, Professor of Government, Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law; and Director, Election Law Program, The College of William &amp; Mary</li><li><strong>Prof. Christopher H. Schroeder,</strong> Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies; Co-Director of the Program in Public Law, Duke Law School</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Thomas B. Griffith,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Dr. John C. Eastman,</strong> Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Chairman, Federalism &amp; Separation of Powers Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:19:44 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-presidents-duty-to-take-care-that-the-law-be-faithfully-executed-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_PresidentsDutytoTakeCareLawBeFaithfullyExecuted11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionIs President Obama failing in this basic obligation of the President? Allegations of lawlessness have been made about his decisions not to enforce the immigration law, to suspend some requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and to flout Congress’s requirement of thirty-day notice before freeing prisoners from Guantanamo. Are these fair charges or does the President enjoy inherent constitutional power or specific statutory authority to decline enforcement? What should be Congress’s reaction to non-enforcement? Does this pattern of non-enforcement imply anything more general about the President’s legal or political philosophy? -- The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group presented this panel on "The President's Duty to Take Care that the Law Be Faithfully Executed" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor Emeritus of Law, Dale E. Bennett Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Law School; Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC; Prof. Neal E. Devins, Goodrich Professor of Law, Cabell Research Professor, Professor of Government, Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law; and Director, Election Law Program, The College of William & Mary; and Prof. Christopher H. Schroeder, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies; Co-Director of the Program in Public Law, Duke Law School. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Chairman, Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:26:10noThe Minimum Wage 11-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-minimum-wage-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_money640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>In January 2014, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama called on Congress to raise the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. In February, President Obama used his pen to raise the minimum wage for employees working on government contracts to $10.10 through an Executive Order. This panel will explore the policy and economics of increasing the minimum wage, which the White House asserts will lift wages for millions of Americans and boost the bottom lines of businesses.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Labor &amp; Employment Law Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;The Minimum Wage&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Ross Eisenbrey, </strong>Vice President, Economic Policy Institute and former Member, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission</li><li><strong>Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, </strong>Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, former chief economist, U.S. Department of Labor</li><li><strong>Mrs. Karen R. Harned, </strong>Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Foundation</li><li><strong>Hon. David Weil, </strong>Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, </strong>United States District Court, Eastern District of New York</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:16:51 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-minimum-wage-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_TheMinimumWage11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionIn January 2014, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama called on Congress to raise the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. In February, President Obama used his pen to raise the minimum wage for employees working on government contracts to $10.10 through an Executive Order. This panel will explore the policy and economics of increasing the minimum wage, which the White House asserts will lift wages for millions of Americans and boost the bottom lines of businesses. -- The Federalist Society's Labor & Employment Law Practice Group presented this panel on "The Minimum Wage" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Ross Eisenbrey, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute and former Member, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, former chief economist, U.S. Department of Labor; Mrs. Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Foundation; and Hon. David Weil, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor. Moderator: Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.The Federalist Society01:34:38noReligious Liberty after Hobby Lobby 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/religious-liberty-after-hobby-lobby-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="94" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_HobbyLobby640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013-14 Term included two major religion cases, <em>Town of Greece v. Galloway</em> and <em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</em>. In <em>Galloway</em>, the Court held that prayers offered by local clergy at the start of town board meetings did not violate the Establishment Clause. In <em>Hobby Lobby</em>, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required that corporations whose owners object to the HHS contraceptive mandate be exempt from it. The panel will explore, from a range of perspectives, the significance of <em>Hobby Lobby</em> and the religious freedom jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Among the topics to be considered are the analysis under RFRA of the government’s compelling interest and the narrow tailoring requirements, the interplay between religious exemptions and the Establishment Clause, emerging issues at the intersection of religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, ongoing challenges to the HHS contraceptive mandate, and the legacy of <em>Hobby Lobby</em> for future First Amendment and religious freedom cases.</p><p> The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Groups presented this panel on &quot;Religious Liberty after Hobby Lobby&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Kim Colby, </strong>Senior Counsel, Christian Legal Society</li><li><strong>Prof. William P. Marshall, </strong>William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished --Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, </strong>Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director, Program in Family Law and Policy, University of Illinois College of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, </strong>U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. William L. Saunders, </strong>Senior Vice President and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life and Chairman, Religious Liberties Practice Group</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:09:36 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/religious-liberty-after-hobby-lobby-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_ReligiousLibertyafterHobbyLobby11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013-14 Term included two major religion cases, Town of Greece v. Galloway and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In Galloway, the Court held that prayers offered by local clergy at the start of town board meetings did not violate the Establishment Clause. In Hobby Lobby, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required that corporations whose owners object to the HHS contraceptive mandate be exempt from it. The panel will explore, from a range of perspectives, the significance of Hobby Lobby and the religious freedom jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Among the topics to be considered are the analysis under RFRA of the government’s compelling interest and the narrow tailoring requirements, the interplay between religious exemptions and the Establishment Clause, emerging issues at the intersection of religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, ongoing challenges to the HHS contraceptive mandate, and the legacy of Hobby Lobby for future First Amendment and religious freedom cases. -- The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Groups presented this panel on "Religious Liberty after Hobby Lobby" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Kim Colby, Senior Counsel, Christian Legal Society
Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished --Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director, Program in Family Law and Policy, University of Illinois College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life and Chairman, Religious Liberties Practice Group.The Federalist Society01:39:05noCopyright Revision 11-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/copyright-revision-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="95" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_Copyrightsymbol640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>The U.S. Supreme Court has in the past several years begun to take several intellectual property cases each term, often including important copyright cases, like last term’s <em>American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.</em> At the same time, the legislature has already substantially revised patent rights, seems to be ready to revisit patent rights yet again, and is poised to consider revisions to copyright. On the table seem to be issues of the length of copyright term, fair use, and more. Our panel of experts will discuss the past present and future of IP and copyright.</p><p>The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group presented this panel on &quot;Copyright Revision&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Danielle Aguirre, </strong>Senior Vice President, Business &amp; Legal Affairs, National Music Publishers’ Association</li><li><strong>Mr. Usman Ahmed, </strong>Policy Counsel, eBay Inc.</li><li><strong>Prof. David S. Olson,</strong> Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School</li><li><strong>Ms. Katherine A. Oyama,</strong> Senior Copyright Policy Counsel, Google, Inc.</li><li><strong>Prof. Mark F. Schultz, </strong>Senior Scholar and Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Law Professor, Southern Illinois University</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, </strong>U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Professor of Law, George Mason University</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:14:02 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/copyright-revision-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_CopyrightRevision11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThe U.S. Supreme Court has in the past several years begun to take several intellectual property cases each term, often including important copyright cases, like last term’s American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. At the same time, the legislature has already substantially revised patent rights, seems to be ready to revisit patent rights yet again, and is poised to consider revisions to copyright. On the table seem to be issues of the length of copyright term, fair use, and more. Our panel of experts will discuss the past present and future of IP and copyright. -- The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group presented this panel on "Copyright Revision" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Danielle Aguirre, Senior Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs, National Music Publishers’ Association; Mr. Usman Ahmed, Policy Counsel, eBay Inc.; Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School; Ms. Katherine A. Oyama, Senior Copyright Policy Counsel, Google, Inc.; and Prof. Mark F. Schultz, Senior Scholar and Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Law Professor, Southern Illinois University. Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Professor of Law, George Mason University.The Federalist Society01:27:57noThe Short-Termism Debate 11-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 National Lawyers Convention</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-short-termism-debate-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="95" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_SignpostTodayTomorrowYesterday640x240.jpg" width="250" /></a>For thirty years, the economic analysis of corporate law has been based on the assumption that shareholder value is a reliable proxy for social welfare. However, for some time now, the large majority of the shares in some public companies have been held by institutional investors, including pension funds and mutual funds. These investors have some incentive to favor short-term profits at the expense longer-term benefits. Can shareholder value still be reliably equated with social welfare? Or does the current incentive structure encourage the misallocation of resources and a net social loss?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities &amp; Antitrust Practice Groups presented this panel on &quot;The Short-Termism Debate&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Lucian A. Bebchuk,</strong> William J. Friedman and Alicia Townsend Friedman Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, </strong>Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Robert T. Miller,</strong> Professor of Law and F. Arnold Daum Fellow in Corporate Law, University of Iowa College of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Steven A. Rosenblum,</strong> Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Hon. E. Norman Veasey,</strong> Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 20:06:52 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-short-termism-debate-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_TheShortTermismDebate11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionFor thirty years, the economic analysis of corporate law has been based on the assumption that shareholder value is a reliable proxy for social welfare. However, for some time now, the large majority of the shares in some public companies have been held by institutional investors, including pension funds and mutual funds. These investors have some incentive to favor short-term profits at the expense longer-term benefits. Can shareholder value still be reliably equated with social welfare? Or does the current incentive structure encourage the misallocation of resources and a net social loss? -- The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups presented this panel on "The Short-Termism Debate" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Lucian A. Bebchuk, William J. Friedman and Alicia Townsend Friedman Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School; Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Robert T. Miller, Professor of Law and F. Arnold Daum Fellow in Corporate Law, University of Iowa College of Law; and Mr. Steven A. Rosenblum, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Moderator: Hon. E. Norman Veasey, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court.The Federalist Society01:48:23noShowcase Panel I: Youth, Employment, and the Law 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-i-youth-employment-and-the-law-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="95" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_2014NLCmillenials.jpg" width="250" /></a> This panel will examine intergenerational equity issues raised by employment discrimination laws, including those protecting the elderly from discrimination. Those laws, minimum wage laws, laws favoring unionization, and laws countering arbitrary dismissal have obvious appeal. But many of those very laws greatly raise the costs to business of entry-level hiring. One consequence may be that many young people are only able to enter the work force as interns or fellows. This may be especially true for minorities. Are these costs worth the benefits? Is there some middle ground?</p><p> The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on &quot;Youth, Employment and the Law&quot; on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Richard A. Epstein,</strong> Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, and James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School</li><li><strong>Hon. Chai Rachel Feldblum,</strong> U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</li><li><strong>Hon. Gail Heriot,</strong> U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, University of San Diego School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. J. Hoult &quot;Rip&quot; Verkerke,</strong> Director, Program for Employment and Labor Law Studies, University of Virginia School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 16:22:56 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/showcase-panel-i-youth-employment-and-the-law-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_ShowcasePanel111132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionThis panel will examine intergenerational equity issues raised by employment discrimination laws, including those protecting the elderly from discrimination. Those laws, minimum wage laws, laws favoring unionization, and laws countering arbitrary dismissal have obvious appeal. But many of those very laws greatly raise the costs to business of entry-level hiring. One consequence may be that many young people are only able to enter the work force as interns or fellows. This may be especially true for minorities. Are these costs worth the benefits? Is there some middle ground? -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Youth, Employment and the Law" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, and James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Hon. Chai Rachel Feldblum, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Hon. Gail Heriot, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, University of San Diego School of Law; and Prof. J. Hoult "Rip" Verkerke, Director, Program for Employment and Labor Law Studies, University of Virginia School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.The Federalist Society01:46:28no2014 National Lawyers Convention Opening with Justice Scalia 11-13-2014<p><strong>2014 National Lawyers Convention</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-national-lawyers-convention-opening-with-justice-scalia-event-video" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="102" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20141114_2014NLCOpeningwithJusticeScalia745x300.jpg" width="250" /></a>United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opened the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on November 13 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Justice Scalia discussed the importance of Magna Carta.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Antonin Scalia,</strong> United States Supreme Court</li><li><strong><em>Introduction: </em>Mr. Leonard A. Leo, </strong>Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br />Washington, DC</p>19 Nov 2014 16:15:55 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-national-lawyers-convention-opening-with-justice-scalia-event-video
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141118_JusticeScaliaOpeningRemarks11132014.mp32014 National Lawyers ConventionUnited States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opened the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on November 13 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Justice Scalia discussed the importance of Magna Carta. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society28:43noHow Free Should Trade Be? 10-25-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">International Law Weekend 2014</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/how-free-should-trade-be-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" height="198" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20111122_globe.jpg" width="199" /></a>The panel of experts will focus on international trade and what limits, if any, should be applied. Likely topics to be addressed will include Presidential fast-track trade negotiation authority, the benefits and burdens of free trade, whether trade is an effective tool of foreign policy (e.g. binding countries together, sanctions), and multilateral versus global trade deals. The panelists are expected to have differing points of view, and we expect a lively discussion.</p><p>The Federalist Society co-sponsored this panel from the International Law Weekend 2014 held at Fordham University School of Law on October 25, 2014.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Celeste Drake, </strong>Trade and Globalization Policy Specialist, AFL-CIO</li><li><strong>Prof. John McGinnis,</strong> George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law</li><li><strong>Hon. Grover Joseph Rees,</strong> Former U.S. Ambassador to East Timor</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Mr. Matthew Heiman, </strong>Vice President and Chief Compliance &amp; Ethics Officer, Tyco International Ltd.</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">October 25, 2014<br /> Fordham University School of Law</p>4 Nov 2014 16:47:44 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/how-free-should-trade-be-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141104_HowFreeShouldTradeBe10252014.mp3International Law Weekend 2014The panel of experts will focus on international trade and what limits, if any, should be applied. Likely topics to be addressed will include Presidential fast-track trade negotiation authority, the benefits and burdens of free trade, whether trade is an effective tool of foreign policy (e.g. binding countries together, sanctions), and multilateral versus global trade deals. The panelists are expected to have differing points of view, and we expect a lively discussion. -- The Federalist Society co-sponsored this panel from the International Law Weekend 2014 held at Fordham University School of Law on October 25, 2014. -- Featuring: Ms. Celeste Drake, Trade and Globalization Policy Specialist, AFL-CIO; Prof. John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, Former U.S. Ambassador to East Timor. Moderator: Mr. Matthew Heiman, Vice President and Chief Compliance & Ethics Officer, Tyco International Ltd.The Federalist Society01:31:37noIS It Legal? Legal Authority for the Campaign Against the Islamic State 10-22-2014<p><strong>DC Young Lawyers Chapter and The Alexander Hamilton Society</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-it-legal-legal-authority-for-the-campaign-against-the-islamic-state-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20141024_FA18CFighterIraqAirstrikesAugust72014360x300.jpg" height="180" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20141024_FA18CFighterIraqAirstrikesAugust72014360x300.jpg" width="217" /></a>The Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter and The Alexander Hamilton Society co-hosted this event on October 22, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>John Bellinger,</strong> Partner, Arnold &amp; Porter and former Legal Advisor to the Department of State (2005 -2009)</li><li><strong>Steve Bradbury,</strong> Partner, Dechert LLP and former Head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice (2004-2009)</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Rachel L. Brand,</strong> Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Sarah Hawkins Warren,</strong> Partner, Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP and President, DC Young Lawyers Chapter</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>24 Oct 2014 18:22:13 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-it-legal-legal-authority-for-the-campaign-against-the-islamic-state-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20141024_ISIS10222014.mp3DC Young Lawyers Chapter and The Alexander Hamilton SocietyThe Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter and The Alexander Hamilton Society co-hosted this event on October 22, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: John Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter and former Legal Advisor to the Department of State (2005 -2009) and Steve Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP and former Head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice (2004-2009). Moderator: Rachel L. Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. Introduction: Sarah Hawkins Warren, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and President, DC Young Lawyers Chapter.The Federalist Society01:12:43noSupreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2014? 9-23-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/supreme-court-preview-what-is-in-store-for-october-term-2014-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140825_CFPBlogo360x300.jpg" height="166" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140825_CFPBlogo360x300.jpg" width="200" /></a>October 6th will mark the first day of the 2014 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the First Amendment, separation of powers, election law, criminal law, and more.</p><p> Notable cases include <em>Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama</em> and <em>Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, </em>which concern whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans were unconstitutional; <em>Elonis v. U.S.</em>, which concerns when it is a federal crime to make threatening statements, including messages or postings on social networking web sites such as Facebook; <em>Yates v. U.S.</em>, which concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico would violate the &quot;document shredding provision&quot; of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and <em>Zivotofsky v. Kerry</em>, which concerns Congress's vs. the President's authority over passports and foreign affairs.</p><p> The Court is also likely to add other significant cases, potentially including <em>King v. Burwell</em>, concerning whether the IRS may extend tax-credit subsidies to offset the cost of coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government (rather than state-created exchanges) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; The<em>Episcopal Church v. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth</em>, which concerns the resolution of church property disputes; and one or more same-sex marriage cases. In addition to these cases and others, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.</p><p> The Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on September 23, 2014 at the National Press Club.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. William Consovoy</strong>, Partner, Wiley Rein</li><li><strong>Prof. Orin Kerr</strong>, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School</li><li><strong>Ms. Virginia Seitz</strong>, Partner, Sidley Austin</li><li><strong>Ms. Carrie Severino</strong>, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network</li><li><strong>Mr. Adam White</strong>, Counsel, Boyden Gray &amp; Associates</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>Mr. Adam Liptak</strong>, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>25 Sep 2014 04:48:39 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/supreme-court-preview-what-is-in-store-for-october-term-2014-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140924_2014SCOTUSPreview92314.mp3Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice GroupsOctober 6th will mark the first day of the 2014 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the First Amendment, separation of powers, election law, criminal law, and more. -- Notable cases include Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which concern whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans were unconstitutional; Elonis v. U.S., which concerns when it is a federal crime to make threatening statements, including messages or postings on social networking web sites such as Facebook; Yates v. U.S., which concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico would violate the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which concerns Congress's vs. the President's authority over passports and foreign affairs. -- The Court is also likely to add other significant cases, potentially including King v. Burwell, concerning whether the IRS may extend tax-credit subsidies to offset the cost of coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government (rather than state-created exchanges) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; TheEpiscopal Church v. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, which concerns the resolution of church property disputes; and one or more same-sex marriage cases. In addition to these cases and others, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- The Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on September 23, 2014 at the National Press Club. -- Featuring: Mr. William Consovoy, Partner, Wiley Rein; Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Ms. Virginia Seitz, Partner, Sidley Austin; Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network; and Mr. Adam White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times.59:00noPassion and Prudence in the Political Process: The Debate Over Federal Civil Rights Policy 9-9-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Civil Rights in the United States</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/passion-and-prudence-in-the-political-process-the-debate-over-federal-civil-rights-policy-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" /></a>Emotions sometimes run high in the public debates over race and gender issues. Some claim that public passions can obscure facts and result in ill-considered policy. Many observers have bemoaned the public rhetoric surrounding the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri as more inflammatory than constructive. Another example can be found in criticism over President Obama’s use of a misleading, or at least contestable, figure in his 2014 State of the Union address: &ldquo;Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.” But equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963, and some researchers have questioned whether the pay gap exists in reality to the same extent it does rhetorically. Are similarly emotional arguments being used in the debates over sexual assault in the military, hate crimes, and harassment and bullying in public schools? This panel will explore the concerns over this problem and its policy consequences.</p><p> This panel on &quot;Passion and Prudence in the Political Process: The Debate Over Federal Civil Rights Policy&quot; was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth,</strong> Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research</li><li><strong>Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann,</strong> Senior Counsel &amp; Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center</li><li><strong>Hon. Gail Heriot,</strong> Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Robert Barnes</strong>, Supreme Court Correspondent, <em>The Washington Post</em></li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>15 Sep 2014 04:16:19 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/passion-and-prudence-in-the-political-process-the-debate-over-federal-civil-rights-policy-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140913_FederalCivilRightsPolicy992014.mp3Civil Rights in the United StatesEmotions sometimes run high in the public debates over race and gender issues. Some claim that public passions can obscure facts and result in ill-considered policy. Many observers have bemoaned the public rhetoric surrounding the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri as more inflammatory than constructive. Another example can be found in criticism over President Obama’s use of a misleading, or at least contestable, figure in his 2014 State of the Union address: “Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.” But equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963, and some researchers have questioned whether the pay gap exists in reality to the same extent it does rhetorically. Are similarly emotional arguments being used in the debates over sexual assault in the military, hate crimes, and harassment and bullying in public schools? This panel will explore the concerns over this problem and its policy consequences. -- This panel on "Passion and Prudence in the Political Process: The Debate Over Federal Civil Rights Policy" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center; and Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Washington Post.The Federalist Society01:37:04noThe Future of Voting Rights 9-9-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Civil Rights in the United States</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-future-of-voting-rights-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" /></a>The Supreme Court’s ruling in <em>Shelby County v. Holder</em>, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has led some advocates (including the White House) to argue that voting rights are in peril. But other experts say these fears are wildly overblown and that <em>Shelby County</em> confirms that circumstances have changed dramatically for the better. They argue that Section 5’s federal &ldquo;preclearance” regime can no longer be justified given that the systematic disenfranchisement of the Jim Crow era has disappeared—racial disparities in voter registration and turnout are gone, especially in previously covered jurisdictions—and that we should focus on actual instances of racial discrimination (as well as election administration). After all, Sections 2 and 3 are still very much in place, although Section 2 has been interpreted to require racial gerrymandering in a way that benefits both major parties but harms American democracy. This panel will discuss the state of voting rights today, including the Justice Department’s enforcement actions, proposed legislation in Congress, voter-ID laws, felon voting, and related issues in the states.</p><p> This panel on &quot;The Future of Voting Rights&quot; was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. David H. Gans,</strong> Director, Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center</li><li><strong>Mr. Ilya Shapiro,</strong> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute</li><li><strong>Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, </strong>Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Michael Barone,</strong> Senior Political Analyst, the Washington Examiner</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>15 Sep 2014 04:09:47 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-future-of-voting-rights-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140913_TheFutureofVotingRights992014.mp3Civil Rights in the United StatesThe Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has led some advocates (including the White House) to argue that voting rights are in peril. But other experts say these fears are wildly overblown and that Shelby County confirms that circumstances have changed dramatically for the better. They argue that Section 5’s federal “preclearance” regime can no longer be justified given that the systematic disenfranchisement of the Jim Crow era has disappeared—racial disparities in voter registration and turnout are gone, especially in previously covered jurisdictions—and that we should focus on actual instances of racial discrimination (as well as election administration). After all, Sections 2 and 3 are still very much in place, although Section 2 has been interpreted to require racial gerrymandering in a way that benefits both major parties but harms American democracy. This panel will discuss the state of voting rights today, including the Justice Department’s enforcement actions, proposed legislation in Congress, voter-ID laws, felon voting, and related issues in the states. -- This panel on "The Future of Voting Rights" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. David H. Gans, Director, Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center; Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; and Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Mr. Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst, the Washington Examiner.The Federalist Society01:22:36noRacial Preferences and Promoting Diversity: Are These Policies Taking Us in the Right Direction?-9-9-2014<p><strong>Civil Rights in the United States</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/racial-preferences-and-promoting-diversity-are-these-policies-taking-us-in-the-right-direction-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" /></a>The Obama administration is widely perceived to be an avid proponent of racial preferences. As Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2012, &ldquo;The question is not when does [affirmative action] end, but when does it begin.” Several landmark pieces of legislation that President Barack Obama has signed into law—primarily on other topics, such as the Dodd Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection and Reform Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—have expanded racial preferences in federal hiring, contracting, and at regulated entities. The president has also issued multiple executive orders and related instructions that aggressively seek to expand the numbers of women and minorities in the federal workforce. The Obama administration’s response to <em>Fisher v. University of Texas</em>, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013), which directed courts to use strict scrutiny in analyzing whether admissions policies are narrowly tailored to achieve universities’ diversity goals, may be another such example. After <em>Fisher</em>, officials at the Departments of Education and Justice produced guidance documents that have been read to assure colleges and universities that they could continue using large racial preferences in student admissions. This panel will explore this proliferation of racial preferences and the likely effects of such policies. Among other things, panelists will discuss evidence that racial preferences in education do more harm than good to their intended beneficiaries, resulting in fewer under-represented minorities going on to high-status careers. The panel will also discuss efforts to protect women and minorities from ill-defined &ldquo;harassment” as a means of maintaining diversity in the workplace and on campuses—and how these efforts may raise First Amendment concerns and create perverse incentives to discriminate against persons who are perceived as likely to view innocent or trivial workplace and campus interactions as harassment.</p><p>This panel on &quot;Racial Preferences and Promoting Diversity: Are These Policies Taking Us in the Right Direction?&quot; was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Hans Bader,</strong> Senior Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute</li><li><strong>Prof. Louis Michael Seidman,</strong> Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr.,</strong> Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Dr. Roger Pilon,</strong> Vice President for Legal Affairs, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, and Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>15 Sep 2014 04:05:32 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/racial-preferences-and-promoting-diversity-are-these-policies-taking-us-in-the-right-direction-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140913_RacialPreferences992014.mp3Civil Rights in the United StatesThe Obama administration is widely perceived to be an avid proponent of racial preferences. As Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2012, “The question is not when does [affirmative action] end, but when does it begin.” Several landmark pieces of legislation that President Barack Obama has signed into law—primarily on other topics, such as the Dodd Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection and Reform Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—have expanded racial preferences in federal hiring, contracting, and at regulated entities. The president has also issued multiple executive orders and related instructions that aggressively seek to expand the numbers of women and minorities in the federal workforce. The Obama administration’s response to Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013), which directed courts to use strict scrutiny in analyzing whether admissions policies are narrowly tailored to achieve universities’ diversity goals, may be another such example. After Fisher, officials at the Departments of Education and Justice produced guidance documents that have been read to assure colleges and universities that they could continue using large racial preferences in student admissions. This panel will explore this proliferation of racial preferences and the likely effects of such policies. Among other things, panelists will discuss evidence that racial preferences in education do more harm than good to their intended beneficiaries, resulting in fewer under-represented minorities going on to high-status careers. The panel will also discuss efforts to protect women and minorities from ill-defined “harassment” as a means of maintaining diversity in the workplace and on campuses—and how these efforts may raise First Amendment concerns and create perverse incentives to discriminate against persons who are perceived as likely to view innocent or trivial workplace and campus interactions as harassment. -- This panel on "Racial Preferences and Promoting Diversity: Are These Policies Taking Us in the Right Direction?" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. Hans Bader, Senior Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Prof. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution. Moderator: Dr. Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, and Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.The Federalist Society01:27:56noDisparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal? 9-9-2014<p><strong>Civil Rights in the United States</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/disparate-impact-and-the-rule-of-law-does-disparate-impact-liability-make-everything-illegal-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140814_ConstitutionGavelAmericanFlag200x150.jpg" /></a> Disparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate impact) on a particular race, sex, national origin, or religion—was invented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Johnson administration as a strategy for stepping up the fight against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court eventually adopted this theory of liability in the employment context in the controversial case of <em>Griggs v. Duke Power</em>, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Congress later incorporated it into the employment context in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Obama administration has eagerly embraced disparate impact liability: Administration officials have applied it to new areas, like housing, education and credit. Disturbingly to some, these officials have also arranged settlements in lawsuits headed to the Supreme Court that appeared likely to result in decisions limiting the doctrine’s reach. Because nearly every employment, education, housing, or lending policy has a disproportionate effect on some protected group, the recent growth of disparate impact means that virtually any such policy may be deemed illegal. Panelists will discuss whether and to what extent disparate impact’s metastasis thus threatens traditional principles of the rule of law and whether it is consistent with statutory law and the Constitution.</p><p> This panel on &quot;Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?&quot; was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Roger B. Clegg,</strong> President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity</li><li><strong>Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow,</strong> Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &amp; Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board</li><li><strong>Prof. Theodore M. Shaw,</strong> Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina Law School</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. John G. Malcolm,</strong> Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Dean A. Reuter, </strong>Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;"> The Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>15 Sep 2014 03:57:47 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/disparate-impact-and-the-rule-of-law-does-disparate-impact-liability-make-everything-illegal-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140913_DisparateImpact992014.mp3Civil Rights in the United StatesDisparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate impact) on a particular race, sex, national origin, or religion—was invented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Johnson administration as a strategy for stepping up the fight against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court eventually adopted this theory of liability in the employment context in the controversial case of Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Congress later incorporated it into the employment context in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Obama administration has eagerly embraced disparate impact liability: Administration officials have applied it to new areas, like housing, education and credit. Disturbingly to some, these officials have also arranged settlements in lawsuits headed to the Supreme Court that appeared likely to result in decisions limiting the doctrine’s reach. Because nearly every employment, education, housing, or lending policy has a disproportionate effect on some protected group, the recent growth of disparate impact means that virtually any such policy may be deemed illegal. Panelists will discuss whether and to what extent disparate impact’s metastasis thus threatens traditional principles of the rule of law and whether it is consistent with statutory law and the Constitution. -- This panel on "Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board; and Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina Law School. Moderator: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:16:34noHot Topics in Class Action Reform: The BP Deepwater Horizon Case 9-4-214<p><strong>Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups</strong></p><p><br /><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/hot-topics-in-class-action-reform-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-case-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140829_GulfofMexicobeach360x300.jpg" height="164" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140829_GulfofMexicobeach360x300.jpg" width="197" /></a> Putting aside criminal cases, the stakes for all sides are perhaps never higher than in a class action case – mere certification of a class can increase the pressure to settle exponentially. But, of course, the class must be properly composed in order to be certified. In the recently-decided <em>Wal-Mart v. Dukes</em> case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited some of the basic requirements for certification of a class of plaintiffs, including commonality. Other requirements of Rule 23 certification may surface in ongoing litigation stemming from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where defense attorneys are arguing, among other things, that the settlement agreement is being administered and interpreted overly broadly to include numerous class members who have not suffered any injury caused by BP. Our experts will discuss recent developments in class action litigation, including a pending petition for cert in the BP case. The Federalist Society presented this panel on September 4, 2014.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Neal K. Katyal,</strong> Partner, Hogan Lovells, and Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Hon. Theodore B. Olson,</strong> Partner, Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr.,</strong> Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p>9 Sep 2014 23:12:32 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/hot-topics-in-class-action-reform-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-case-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140909_BPDeepwaterHorizonCase942014.mp3Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice GroupsPutting aside criminal cases, the stakes for all sides are perhaps never higher than in a class action case – mere certification of a class can increase the pressure to settle exponentially. But, of course, the class must be properly composed in order to be certified. In the recently-decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited some of the basic requirements for certification of a class of plaintiffs, including commonality. Other requirements of Rule 23 certification may surface in ongoing litigation stemming from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where defense attorneys are arguing, among other things, that the settlement agreement is being administered and interpreted overly broadly to include numerous class members who have not suffered any injury caused by BP. Our experts will discuss recent developments in class action litigation, including a pending petition for cert in the BP case. The Federalist Society presented this panel on September 4, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells, and Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.The Federalist Society01:17:56noObama's Enforcer: Eric Holder's Justice Department 8-11-2014<p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/obamas-enforcer-eric-holders-justice-department-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="20140828_ObamasEnforcer149x225.jpg" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imgLib/20140828_ObamasEnforcer149x225.jpg" /></a>From &ldquo;Fast and Furious” to the unprecedented surveillance of journalists, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has become the dark side of the Obama Administration. The Attorney General is at the center of a growing list of scandals and congressional investigations. <em>Obama’s Enforcer</em> uncovers how the DOJ has become a hotbed of left-wing legal activism. It delves into the close personal association of Holder and Obama, describes the politicization of the Department of Justice, and provides in-depth portraits of the radical lawyers in Holder’s inner circle. The book has been endorsed by Sen. Ted Cruz and Radio Talk Show host Mark Levin. The Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on August 11, 2014.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>John Fund, </strong>Columnist, National Review Online, and Senior Editor, The American Spectator</li><li><strong>Hans A. von Spakovsky, </strong>Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Las Vegas, NV<br /> August 11, 2014</p>28 Aug 2014 17:20:57 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/obamas-enforcer-eric-holders-justice-department-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140828_ObamasEnforcerVegas8112014.mp3Las Vegas Lawyers ChapterFrom “Fast and Furious” to the unprecedented surveillance of journalists, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has become the dark side of the Obama Administration. The Attorney General is at the center of a growing list of scandals and congressional investigations. Obama’s Enforcer uncovers how the DOJ has become a hotbed of left-wing legal activism. It delves into the close personal association of Holder and Obama, describes the politicization of the Department of Justice, and provides in-depth portraits of the radical lawyers in Holder’s inner circle. The book has been endorsed by Sen. Ted Cruz and Radio Talk Show host Mark Levin. The Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on August 11, 2014. Featuring: John Fund, Columnist, National Review Online, and Senior Editor, The American Spectator and Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.The Federalist Society29:23no2014 Annual Supreme Court Round Up 7-18-2014<p><strong>Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-annual-supreme-court-round-up-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20110810_ThomasHungar.gif" /></a> <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-annual-supreme-court-round-up-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130121_NoelFrancisco.gif" /></a>On July 18, 2014, <strong>Thomas Hungar</strong> of Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP and <strong>Noel Francisco</strong> of Jones Day delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><div><ul><li><strong>Mr. Thomas G. Hungar, </strong>Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP and former U.S. Deputy Solicitor General</li><li><strong>Mr. Noel J. Francisco, </strong>Jones Day</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Douglas R. Cox, </strong>Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP</li></ul><div><p style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-style:italic;">The Mayflower Hotel<br />Washington, DC</span></span></p></div></div>24 Jul 2014 22:03:41 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-annual-supreme-court-round-up-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/20140723_2014AnnualSupremeCourtRoundUp7182014.mp3Washington, DC Lawyers ChapterOn July 18, 2014, Thomas Hungar of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Noel Francisco of Jones Day delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Mr. Douglas R. Cox of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP moderated.The Federalist Society01:21:52noCommissioner Barkow Keynote Remarks 5-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-remarks-by-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-and-commissioner-rachel-barkow-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Rachel Barkow" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131010_RachelBarkow.gif" /></a> | The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled &quot;Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes&quot;. U.S. Sentencing Commissioner Rachel Barkow delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop.</p><p><strong>Keynote Remarks</strong><br />5:15 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Rachel E. Barkow,</strong> United States Sentencing Commison</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> William N. Shepherd,</strong>Partner, Holland &amp; Knight LLP</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Hart Senate Office Building<br /> Washington, DC</p>11 Jun 2014 22:35:27 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-remarks-by-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-and-commissioner-rachel-barkow-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/commissionerbarkowkeynoteremarks-5-13-2014.mp3Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory CrimesThe Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". U.S. Sentencing Commissioner Rachel Barkow delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop. Introduction: William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP.The Federalist Society18:23noSenator Whitehouse Keynote Remarks 5-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes</span></p><p><img align="right" alt="Sheldon Whitehouse" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140704_20140611SheldonWhitehouse.jpg" />The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled &quot;Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes&quot;. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop.</p><p><strong>Keynote Remarks</strong><br />5:15 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, </strong>United States Senator (RI)</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Caroline Fredrickson,</strong>President, American Constitution Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Hart Senate Office Building<br /> Washington, DC</p>11 Jun 2014 22:22:14 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-remarks-by-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-and-commissioner-rachel-barkow-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audioLib/20140710_SenatorWhitehouseKeynoteRemarks5132014.mp3Senator Whitehouse Keynote Remarks 5-13-2014The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop. Introduction: Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society.The Federalist Society29:20noAgency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes 5-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/agency-enforcement-and-prosecution-of-regulatory-crimes-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Agency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20120613_suithandcuffs.gif" /></a>The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled &quot;Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes&quot;. This panel on &quot;Agency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes&quot; was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Panel Two: Agency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes</strong><br />4:00 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Kate Andrias,</strong> Michigan Law</li><li><strong>Matthew S. Axelrod,</strong> Cohen Milstein Sellers &amp; Toll, PLLC</li><li><strong>James R. Copland,</strong> Manhattan Institute</li><li><strong>Rena Steinzor,</strong> University of Maryland Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Richard A. Bierschbach,</strong>Cardozo Law</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Hart Senate Office Building<br /> Washington, DC</p>11 Jun 2014 22:20:22 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/agency-enforcement-and-prosecution-of-regulatory-crimes-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/agencyenforcementandprosecution-5-13-2014.mp3Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory CrimesThe Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". This panel on "Agency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes" was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Featuring: Kate Andrias, Michigan Law; Matthew S. Axelrod, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC; James R. Copland, Manhattan Institute; and Rena Steinzor, University of Maryland Law. Moderator: Richard A. Bierschbach, Cardozo Law.The Federalist Society01:12:00noSenator Lee Keynote Remarks 5-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-remarks-by-senator-mike-lee-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Mike S. Lee" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20110906_MikeLeesmall.gif" /></a> | The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled &quot;Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes&quot;. Senator Mike Lee of Utah delivered some keynote remarks during the workshop.</p><p><strong>Keynote Remarks</strong><br />3:30 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Michael S. Lee,</strong> United States Senator (UT)</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> William N. Shepherd,</strong>Partner, Holland &amp; Knight LLP</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Hart Senate Office Building<br /> Washington, DC</p>11 Jun 2014 22:18:44 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-remarks-by-senator-mike-lee-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/senatorleekeynoteremarks-5-13-2014.mp3Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory CrimesThe Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". Senator Mike Lee of Utah delivered some keynote remarks during the workshop. Introduction: William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP.The Federalist Society29:26noDefining Regulatory Crimes 5-13-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes</span> </p><p><img align="right" alt="Defining Regulatory Crimes - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140705_gavelregulation.jpg" />The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled &quot;Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes&quot;. This panel on &quot;Defining Regulatory Crimes&quot; was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Introduction</strong><br />2:00 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Matthew Weiner,</strong> Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States</li></ul><p><strong>Panel One: Defining Regulatory Crimes</strong><br />2:00 PM</p><ul><li><strong>Susan R. Klein,</strong> UT Austin School of Law</li><li><strong>John Malcolm,</strong> Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong>Daniel C. Richman,</strong> Columbia University</li><li><strong>George Terwilliger III,</strong> Morgan Lewis</li><li><strong><em>Moderator: </em>The Hon. Ronald Cass,</strong>Cass &amp; Associates</li><li><em><strong>Introduction:</strong></em> <strong>Hon. Lee Liberman Otis,</strong> Senior Vice President &amp; Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Hart Senate Office Building<br /> Washington, DC</p>11 Jun 2014 22:15:48 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/defining-regulatory-crimes-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/definingregulatorycrimes-5-13-2014.mp3Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory CrimesThe Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". This panel on "Defining Regulatory Crimes" was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. -- Introduction: Matthew Weiner, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States -- Panel One: Defining Regulatory Crimes -- Featuring: Susan R. Klein, UT Austin School of Law; John Malcolm, Heritage Foundation; Daniel C. Richman, Columbia University; and George Terwilliger III, Morgan Lewis. Moderator: The Hon. Ronald Cass, Cass & Associates. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:19:07noThe Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights 5-20-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Environmental Law &amp; Property Rights Practice Group</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-oklahoma-attorney-generals-plan-the-clean-air-act-section-111d-framework-that-preserves-states-rights-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Scott Pruit" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140522_ScottPruitt.jpg" /></a>Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to propose new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. What is the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Section 111(d)?</p><p>Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt will discuss his recent paper, &quot;The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights.&quot; The Attorney General's plan for state-level compliance construes federal and state authority under Section 111(d) as follows: EPA designs a procedure and emission guidelines, and States determine the legally enforceable emission standard that is as stringent as the applicable guideline – unless the State determines that circumstances justify imposition of a less stringent emission standard. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Plan institutes a unit-by-unit, &ldquo;inside the fence” approach to determining State emission standards, and accounts for the practical reality that air quality impacts differ from State to State, as do costs and opportunities for CO2 emission reductions. This approach preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA; the Oklahoma Attorney General’s plan keeps resource planning in the hands of state regulators with specialized expertise and a focus on ratepayer impacts and protection of the public interest.</p><p>Attorney General Pruitt's presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of the plan's merits, its understanding of Section 111(d), and its wider implications for State Clean Air Act compliance.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Scott Pruitt</strong>, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma</li><li><strong>Mr. F. William Brownell</strong>, Executive Committee Chariman and former head of Administrative Law and Environmental Practice Groups, Hunton &amp; Williams LLP﻿</li><li><strong>Mr. Patrick McCormick III</strong>, Republican Special Counsel, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee</li><li><strong>Mr. David Doniger</strong>, Policy Director and Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council Climate and Clean Air Program</li><li>﻿<strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark</strong>, Chairman, Federalist Society Environmental Law &amp; Property Rights Practice Group Executive Committee, and Partner, Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP</li></ul><div><p style="text-align:center;">National Press Club<br /> Washington, DC</p></div>23 May 2014 16:20:51 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-oklahoma-attorney-generals-plan-the-clean-air-act-section-111d-framework-that-preserves-states-rights-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/scottpruitt-cleanairact-5-20-14.mp3Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice GroupUnder Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to propose new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. What is the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Section 111(d)? -- Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt will discuss his recent paper, "The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights." The Attorney General's plan for state-level compliance construes federal and state authority under Section 111(d) as follows: EPA designs a procedure and emission guidelines, and States determine the legally enforceable emission standard that is as stringent as the applicable guideline – unless the State determines that circumstances justify imposition of a less stringent emission standard. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Plan institutes a unit-by-unit, “inside the fence” approach to determining State emission standards, and accounts for the practical reality that air quality impacts differ from State to State, as do costs and opportunities for CO2 emission reductions. This approach preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA; the Oklahoma Attorney General’s plan keeps resource planning in the hands of state regulators with specialized expertise and a focus on ratepayer impacts and protection of the public interest. -- Attorney General Pruitt's presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of the plan's merits, its understanding of Section 111(d), and its wider implications for State Clean Air Act compliance. -- Featuring: Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma; Mr. F. William Brownell, Executive Committee Chariman and former head of Administrative Law and Environmental Practice Groups, Hunton & Williams LLP﻿; Mr. Patrick McCormick III, Republican Special Counsel, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Mr. David Doniger, Policy Director and Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council Climate and Clean Air Program. ﻿Moderator: Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Chairman, Federalist Society Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Executive Committee, and Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.The Federalist Society01:30:15noKeynote Address by Ted Cruz 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-ted-cruz-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Keynote Address by Ted Cruz - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130205_TedCruz.gif" /></a>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference.</p><p><strong>Keynote Address</strong><br /> 2:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.<br /><em>Promenade Ballroom</em></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Ted Cruz,</strong> U.S. Senator, Texas</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Leonard A. Leo,</strong>Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:54:10 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-ted-cruz-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/keynoteaddressbytedcruz-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceA key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.The Federalist Society53:50noExecutive Power and the Role of the Coordinate Branches 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/executive-power-and-the-role-of-the-coordinate-branches-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Executive Power and the Role of the Coordinate Branches - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131125_BranchesofGovernment.gif" /></a>What are the duties and responsibilities of the Legislative and Judicial Branch in policing Executive Branch activities? Has the administrative state grown to an extent that the very balance of power between the three branches has changed, and have the coordinate branches taken a step back? When it comes to the separation of powers, and ensuring one branch does not encroach on the proper authority of another, Federalist 51 advises that, &ldquo;Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Should Congress provide more robust oversight, or use its power of the purse more readily to rein in the Executive? Has the judiciary, through the non-delegation doctrine, Chevron deference, and its recent City of Arlington decision, struck the right balance? These and other questions will be addressed by our panelists.</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>Luncheon Panel: Executive Power and the Role of the Coordinate Branches</strong><br /> 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.<br /><em>State Room</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Charles J. Cooper,</strong> Partner, Cooper &amp; Kirk, PLLC</li><li><strong>Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr.,</strong> John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School</li><li><strong>Prof. Neomi Rao,</strong> Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. David M. McIntosh,</strong>Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:52:30 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/executive-power-and-the-role-of-the-coordinate-branches-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/executivepowerandtheroleofcoordinatebranches-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceWhat are the duties and responsibilities of the Legislative and Judicial Branch in policing Executive Branch activities? Has the administrative state grown to an extent that the very balance of power between the three branches has changed, and have the coordinate branches taken a step back? When it comes to the separation of powers, and ensuring one branch does not encroach on the proper authority of another, Federalist 51 advises that, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Should Congress provide more robust oversight, or use its power of the purse more readily to rein in the Executive? Has the judiciary, through the non-delegation doctrine, Chevron deference, and its recent City of Arlington decision, struck the right balance? These and other questions will be addressed by our panelists. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School; and Prof. Neomi Rao, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:14:38noThe Contraceptive Mandate 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-contraceptive-mandate-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="The Contraceptive Mandate - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140514_HobbyLobby3.jpg" /></a>Religion has long had a special place in our society and in the Constitution. Has that place been evolving? If so, how? What does the Constitution say about the role of the federal government, and the Executive Branch in particular, in the realm of religious liberties? This panel will take up such issues as the HHS contraceptive mandate, the U.S. Solicitor General’s positions in religious freedom cases, and other statutory and regulatory matters that have come to the forefront in recent years.</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>The Contraceptive Mandate</strong><br /> 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.<br /><em>Senate Room</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. S. Kyle Duncan,</strong> Duncan PLLC</li><li><strong>Dr. John C. Eastman,</strong> Henry Salvatori Professor of Law &amp; Community Service, Chapman University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Martin S. Lederman,</strong> Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra,</strong> Chief Counsel, Constitution Accountability Center</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Robert Barnes,</strong> Supreme Court Correspondent, <em>The Washington Post</em></li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:50:41 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-contraceptive-mandate-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/thecontraceptivemandate-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceReligion has long had a special place in our society and in the Constitution. Has that place been evolving? If so, how? What does the Constitution say about the role of the federal government, and the Executive Branch in particular, in the realm of religious liberties? This panel will take up such issues as the HHS contraceptive mandate, the U.S. Solicitor General’s positions in religious freedom cases, and other statutory and regulatory matters that have come to the forefront in recent years. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. S. Kyle Duncan, Duncan PLLC; Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law; Prof. Martin S. Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center; and Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitution Accountability Center. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Washington Post.The Federalist Society01:18:25noThe Internal Revenue Service 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-internal-revenue-service-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="The Internal Revenue Service - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140514_IRSbuilding3.jpg" /></a>The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is in the headlines almost daily. This panel will discuss the IRS’s proposed revision to 501(c)(4) rules, the targeting of certain organizations in IRS review and approval processes, as well as the IRS’s determination, currently the subject of litigation, that individuals who participate in federally-run as well as state-run health care exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act are entitled to subsidies.</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>The Internal Revenue Service</strong><br /> 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.<br /><em>East Room</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Michael A. Carvin,</strong>Partner, Jones Day</li><li><strong>Dr. Craig Holman,</strong>Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen</li><li><strong>Ms. Cleta Mitchell,</strong> Partner, Foley &amp; Lardner LLP</li><li><strong>Mr. Robert N. Weiner,</strong> Partner, Arnold &amp; Porter LLP</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Dean A. Reuter,</strong> Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:48:57 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-internal-revenue-service-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/theinternalrevenueservice-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is in the headlines almost daily. This panel will discuss the IRS’s proposed revision to 501(c)(4) rules, the targeting of certain organizations in IRS review and approval processes, as well as the IRS’s determination, currently the subject of litigation, that individuals who participate in federally-run as well as state-run health care exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act are entitled to subsidies. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. Michael A. Carvin,Partner, Jones Day; Dr. Craig Holman,Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen; Ms. Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP; and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:21:05noDisparate Impact Analysis 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/disparate-impact-analysis-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Disparate Impact Analysis - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131122_CivilRightsLawequality.gif" /></a>Under disparate impact analysis, certain practices might be considered discriminatory if they have a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class of persons, even without discriminatory intent. A number of commentators have noted an expansion of the use of disparate impact analysis in the federal government to areas other than employment, now including education, housing, government contracting, and auto financing, to name a few. Our panel of experts will discuss whether or not there has been such an increase, and, if so, what the ramifications might be.</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>Disparate Impact Analysis</strong><br /> 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.<br /><em>Promenade Ballroom</em></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Gail Heriot,</strong> Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights</li><li><strong>Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow,</strong> Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &amp; Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board</li><li><strong>Prof. Theodore M. Shaw,</strong> Professor of Professional Practice in Law, Columbia University School of Law</li><li><em><strong>Moderator:</strong></em> <strong>Mr. Adam Liptak,</strong> Supreme Court Correspondent, <em>The New York Times</em></li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:47:23 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/disparate-impact-analysis-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/disparateimpactanalysis-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceUnder disparate impact analysis, certain practices might be considered discriminatory if they have a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class of persons, even without discriminatory intent. A number of commentators have noted an expansion of the use of disparate impact analysis in the federal government to areas other than employment, now including education, housing, government contracting, and auto financing, to name a few. Our panel of experts will discuss whether or not there has been such an increase, and, if so, what the ramifications might be. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board; and Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Professor of Professional Practice in Law, Columbia University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times.The Federalist Society01:11:01noPolicy without Process? 5-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/policy-without-process-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Policy without Process? - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140514_WhiteHousestormbw2.jpg" /></a>The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines the process by which federal regulatory agencies are to adopt and enforce federal regulations. Many commentators, however, argue that the federal government has for years engaged in the practice of implementing and enforcing policy while evading the notice and comment requirements of the APA. Critics site informal agency guidance, opinion letters, regional office actions, and other agency actions that purport to bind at least some stakeholders. What are the limits? How real are other commentators complaints about the &ldquo;sue and settle” phenomenon, described as a less-than-adversarial suit brought against, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such a suit, it is claimed, argues for an expansion or broader reading of the EPA’s regulatory authority which, after resolution of the suit via settlement, is agreed to by all parties. Finally, what are the limits of unilateral action by a President via executive order?</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>Policy without Process?</strong><br /> 9:30 – 10:45 a.m.<br /><em>Promenade Ballroom</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan Adler,</strong> Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. William L. Kovacs,</strong> Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology &amp; Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce</li><li><strong>Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck,</strong> Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law</li><li><strong>Moderator: Hon. Susan E. Dudley,</strong> Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration and Director, Regulatory Studies Center, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:45:31 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/policy-without-process-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/policywithoutprocess-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceThe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines the process by which federal regulatory agencies are to adopt and enforce federal regulations. Many commentators, however, argue that the federal government has for years engaged in the practice of implementing and enforcing policy while evading the notice and comment requirements of the APA. Critics site informal agency guidance, opinion letters, regional office actions, and other agency actions that purport to bind at least some stakeholders. What are the limits? How real are other commentators complaints about the “sue and settle” phenomenon, described as a less-than-adversarial suit brought against, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such a suit, it is claimed, argues for an expansion or broader reading of the EPA’s regulatory authority which, after resolution of the suit via settlement, is agreed to by all parties. Finally, what are the limits of unilateral action by a President via executive order? -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Mr. William L. Kovacs, Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration and Director, Regulatory Studies Center, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University.The Federalist Society01:15:45noSuspension of Laws: What are the Limits of Executive Authority? 5-7-2014<p><strong>Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/suspension-of-laws-what-are-the-limits-of-executive-authority-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Suspension of Laws: What are the Limits of Executive Authority? - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140514_DOJ2.jpg" /></a>From enforcing and defending the Defense of Marriage Act, implementing the Affordable Care Act, enforcing federal marijuana laws, to making changes to sentencing guidelines, the Executive Branch has chosen less than vigorous action. What are the limits on the Executive’s authority to defer? When may, and may not, the Executive choose not to act, or to act less vigorously, and still meet the requirements of the Take Care Clause?</p><p>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.</p><p><strong>Suspension of Laws: What are the Limits of Executive Authority?</strong><br /> 9:30 – 10:45 a.m.<br /><em>East Room</em></p><ul><li><strong>Ms. Brianne Gorod,</strong> Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center</li><li><strong>Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,</strong> Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Prof. Jonathan Turley,</strong> J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr.,</strong>Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:43:41 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/suspension-of-laws-what-are-the-limits-of-executive-authority-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/suspensionoflaws-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceFrom enforcing and defending the Defense of Marriage Act, implementing the Affordable Care Act, enforcing federal marijuana laws, to making changes to sentencing guidelines, the Executive Branch has chosen less than vigorous action. What are the limits on the Executive’s authority to defer? When may, and may not, the Executive choose not to act, or to act less vigorously, and still meet the requirements of the Take Care Clause? -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Ms. Brianne Gorod, Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.The Federalist Society01:15:16noWelcome & Opening Address by Tom Cotton 5-7-14<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/welcome-opening-address-by-tom-cotton-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Tom Cotton" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130103_TomCotton.gif" /></a>A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Honorable David M. McIntosh welcomed attendees and introduced United States Representative Tom Cotton of Arkansas who then delivered the Opening Address.</p><p><strong>Welcome &amp; Opening Address</strong><br /> 9:00 – 9:30 a.m.<br /><em>East Room</em></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. David M. McIntosh,</strong> Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist Society</li><li><strong>Hon. Tom Cotton,</strong> U.S. House of Representatives, Arkansas</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Mayflower Hotel<br /> Washington, DC</p>14 May 2014 21:41:32 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/welcome-opening-address-by-tom-cotton-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/openingaddressbytomcotton-5-7-2014.mp3Second Annual Executive Branch Review ConferenceTom CottonA key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Honorable David M. McIntosh welcomed attendees and introduced United States Representative Tom Cotton of Arkansas who then delivered the Opening Address.The Federalist Society23:47no2014 Student Symposium Keynote Address with Michael Mukasey 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-michael-mukasey-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Michael Mukasey" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_mukaseymichael.jpg" /></a>Former United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's 2014 Annual Student Symposium at the University of Florida Levin College of Law on March 8, 2014.</p><p><strong>Banquet</strong><br />7:00 – 10:00 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union – Grand Ballroom</em></p><p><strong>Keynote Address</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Michael B. Mukasey,</strong> 81st Attorney General of the United States</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Prof. Steven J. Willis,</strong>Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:30:22 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/keynote-address-by-michael-mukasey-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/2014symposiumkeynoteaddress-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumFormer United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's 2014 Annual Student Symposium at the University of Florida Levin College of Law on March 8, 2014. Introduction by Prof. Steven J. Willis, Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law.The Federalist Society52:35no2014 Paul M. Bator Award Presentation 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-paul-m-bator-award-presentation-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Joshua Wright" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20130613_JoshuaWright.gif" /></a>The <a href="/aboutus/page/federalist-society-presents-2014-bator-award" title="Federalist Society Presents 2014 Bator Award">Paul M. Bator Award</a> was established in 1989 in memory of Professor Paul M. Bator, a renowned scholar and teacher of federal courts and constitutional law. Professor Bator taught at Harvard Law School from 1959 to 1982 and from 1983 to 1985, and at the University of Chicago from 1985 until his untimely death in 1989. He also served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 1982 and 1983. The award is given annually to a young academic (under 40) who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made a significant public impact. This award is presented during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium. Prof. <strong>Joshua D. Wright</strong> received this award during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium on March 8, 2014 at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. The award was presented by Mr. <strong>Zach Mayo</strong> of the University of Chicago Student Chapter.</p><p><strong>Banquet</strong><br />7:00 – 10:00 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union – Grand Ballroom</em></p><p><strong>2014 Paul M. Bator Award Presentation</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Joshua D. Wright,</strong> Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Presented by:</em> Mr. Zach Mayo,</strong> Vice President &amp; Chair of the Bator Award, University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society Chapter</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Eugene B. Meyer,</strong>President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:28:13 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/2014-paul-m-bator-award-presentation-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/2014batorawardpresentation-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumThe Paul M. Bator Award was established in 1989 in memory of Professor Paul M. Bator, a renowned scholar and teacher of federal courts and constitutional law. Professor Bator taught at Harvard Law School from 1959 to 1982 and from 1983 to 1985, and at the University of Chicago from 1985 until his untimely death in 1989. He also served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 1982 and 1983. The award is given annually to a young academic (under 40) who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made a significant public impact. This award is presented during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium. Prof. Joshua D. Wright received this award during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium on March 8, 2014 at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. The award was presented by Mr. Zach Mayo of the University of Chicago Student Chapter. Introducton by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.The Federalist Society10:06noDrones and Presidential Authority 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/drones-and-presidential-authority-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Drones and Presidential Authority - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20120309_dronemissile.gif" /></a>A key element of America’s national security strategy has been the use of drones to carry out targeted killings against suspected terrorists. Targeted killings have become increasingly controversial, critics argue that the strikes violate the sovereignty of the nations where the attacks occur, and when those strikes occur outside circumstances of armed conflict amount to extrajudicial killings in violation of international human rights law. The U.S. contends that the strikes are part of America’s armed conflict with al Qaeda, and therefore are lawful strategies pursued pursuant to that armed conflict. Under what circumstances does the President have the authority to order the killing of suspected terrorists? Does he require statutory authorization, such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or can he rely on his own inherent power? Is the President bound to abide by treaties and customary international law prohibitions on the use of force? What due process rights are U.S. citizens entitled to when the President chooses to use military force against them? May the President use force against suspected terrorists inside the U.S.?</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.</p><p><strong>Panel 3: &ldquo;DRONES AND PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY”</strong><br />3:45 – 5:30 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong><strong>Prof. Rosa Brooks,</strong></strong> Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Prof. Martin Flaherty,</strong> Leitner Family Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Gregory Katsas,</strong> Partner, Jones Day</li><li><strong>Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen,</strong> Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor,</strong>Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:25:51 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/drones-and-presidential-authority-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/dronesandpresidentialauthority-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumA key element of America’s national security strategy has been the use of drones to carry out targeted killings against suspected terrorists. Targeted killings have become increasingly controversial, critics argue that the strikes violate the sovereignty of the nations where the attacks occur, and when those strikes occur outside circumstances of armed conflict amount to extrajudicial killings in violation of international human rights law. The U.S. contends that the strikes are part of America’s armed conflict with al Qaeda, and therefore are lawful strategies pursued pursuant to that armed conflict. Under what circumstances does the President have the authority to order the killing of suspected terrorists? Does he require statutory authorization, such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or can he rely on his own inherent power? Is the President bound to abide by treaties and customary international law prohibitions on the use of force? What due process rights are U.S. citizens entitled to when the President chooses to use military force against them? May the President use force against suspected terrorists inside the U.S.? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Martin Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Mr. Gregory Katsas, Partner, Jones Day; and Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.The Federalist Society01:44:02noDetained Suspected Terrorists: Try in Military Courts or Civilian Courts? 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/detained-suspected-terrorists-try-in-military-courts-or-civilian-courts-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Detained Suspected Terrorists: Try in Military Courts or Civilian Courts? - Event Audio/Video" height="172" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_CampJustice.gif" width="257" /></a>This panel will address the ongoing debate regarding trying, convicting and punishing suspected terrorists. Should military tribunals be abandoned in favor of trying individuals in Article III courts? A mere seven individuals held in Guantanamo Bay have been tried and convicted by military commissions, while DOJ reports that more than 500 individuals have been convicted of terrorism related offenses. What has prevented the trial of suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay? Should military commissions for suspected terrorists and other enemies be abandoned or do they serve a valuable function?</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.</p><p><strong>Panel 2: &ldquo;DETAINED SUSPECTED TERRORISTS: TRY IN MILITARY COURTS OR CIVILIAN COURTS?”</strong><br />1:45 – 3:30 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Laura Donohue,</strong> Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong><strong>Prof. Christopher Jenks,</strong></strong>Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic and Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law</li><li><strong><strong>Prof. Peter S. Margulies,</strong></strong>Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Deborah Pearlstein,</strong> Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. A. Raymond Randolph,</strong>U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:23:45 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/detained-suspected-terrorists-try-in-military-courts-or-civilian-courts-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/detainedterroristsuspects-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumThis panel will address the ongoing debate regarding trying, convicting and punishing suspected terrorists. Should military tribunals be abandoned in favor of trying individuals in Article III courts? A mere seven individuals held in Guantanamo Bay have been tried and convicted by military commissions, while DOJ reports that more than 500 individuals have been convicted of terrorism related offenses. What has prevented the trial of suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay? Should military commissions for suspected terrorists and other enemies be abandoned or do they serve a valuable function? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Christopher Jenks, Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic and Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law; Prof. Peter S. Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; and Prof. Deborah Pearlstein, Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.The Federalist Society01:41:30noIs the FISA Court Too Secret? 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-the-fisa-court-too-secret-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Is the FISA Court Too Secret? - Event Audio/Video" height="170" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_FISA.gif" width="227" /></a>The proceedings before the FISA Court are ex parte, and secret, prompting critics to argue that the court has become a rubber stamp, authorizing governmental activity without democratic accountability. Are activities conducted pursuant to FISA too secret? Does FISA require more oversight or accountability? Are there any feasible reforms that can effectively balance the need for foreign intelligence gathering against the rights of individuals who are surveilled? This debate will address these important questions.</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.</p><p><strong>Debate 2: &ldquo;IS THE FISA COURT TOO SECRET?”</strong><br />11:00 – 12:15 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Alex Abdo,</strong> Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project</li><li><strong>Prof. Gregory McNeal,</strong> Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Justice Charles T. Canady,</strong>Florida Supreme Court</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:17:20 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-the-fisa-court-too-secret-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/isthefisacourttoosecret-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumThe proceedings before the FISA Court are ex parte, and secret, prompting critics to argue that the court has become a rubber stamp, authorizing governmental activity without democratic accountability. Are activities conducted pursuant to FISA too secret? Does FISA require more oversight or accountability? Are there any feasible reforms that can effectively balance the need for foreign intelligence gathering against the rights of individuals who are surveilled? This debate will address these important questions. -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Mr. Alex Abdo, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project and Prof. Gregory McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Justice Charles T. Canady, Florida Supreme Court.The Federalist Society01:12:32noCybersecurity and the NSA - 3-8-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/cybersecurity-and-the-nsa-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Cybersecurity and the NSA - Event Audio/Video" height="146" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_NSA2.gif" width="234" /></a>The NSA acts pursuant to broad statutory authorities, and has interpreted those statutes to enable vast data collection programs. Two programs in particular, programmatic surveillance of the content of communications and bulk collection of metadata have become the subject of heated public and scholarly debate. Are these programs consistent with the NSA’s mission to gather foreign intelligence and to defend U.S. government information systems? Have the leaks about these programs jeopardized national security, or have they enhanced public accountability? Is there a better way to strike a balance between privacy and security?</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014.</p><p><strong>Panel 1: &ldquo;CYBERSECURITY AND THE NSA”</strong><br />9:00 – 10:45 a.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Stewart Baker,</strong> Partner, Steptoe &amp; Johnson LLP</li><li><strong>Prof. Randy Barnett, </strong>Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong>Prof. Jeremy Rabkin,</strong> Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Chief Justice Ricky Polston,</strong> Florida Supreme Court</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:15:13 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/cybersecurity-and-the-nsa-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/cybersecurityandthensa-3-8-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumThe NSA acts pursuant to broad statutory authorities, and has interpreted those statutes to enable vast data collection programs. Two programs in particular, programmatic surveillance of the content of communications and bulk collection of metadata have become the subject of heated public and scholarly debate. Are these programs consistent with the NSA’s mission to gather foreign intelligence and to defend U.S. government information systems? Have the leaks about these programs jeopardized national security, or have they enhanced public accountability? Is there a better way to strike a balance between privacy and security? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Mr. Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Prof. Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Chief Justice Ricky Polston, Florida Supreme Court.The Federalist Society01:42:11noShould We Better Protect Government Secrets and Punish Leaks More Severely? - 3-7-2014<p><strong>2014 Annual Student Symposium</strong></p><p><img align="right" alt="Should We Better Protect Government Secrets and Punish Leaks More Severely? - Event Audio/Video" height="173" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_topsecret.gif" width="212" />Recent leaks of classified information have undermined the public’s confidence in the ability of their government to keep secrets. Government officials have alleged that these leaks have caused irreparable harm to America’s national security. However, while government officials criticize leaks, they oftentimes are complicit in leaking information when it serves their political interests. All experts seem to agree that some exposures undermine America’s ability to combat terrorism and counter other national security threats. But, other leaks are viewed as a form of whistleblowing and public accountability. Are there good leaks and bad leaks, and who decides? Should the U.S. government do a better job of protecting secrets? Should leakers be prosecuted? What about those media outlets and other entities who publish national security secrets, should they also be prosecuted?</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Friday, March 7, 2014.</p><p><strong>Debate 1: &ldquo;SHOULD WE BETTER PROTECT GOVERNMENT SECRETS AND PUNISH LEAKS MORE SEVERELY?”</strong><br />8:15 – 9:15 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Dr. Roger Pilon,</strong> Vice President for Legal Affairs; B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies; Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute</li><li><strong>Prof. Nadine Strossen, </strong>Professor of Law, New York Law School; Former President, ACLU</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Jerry E. Smith,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:12:07 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/should-we-better-protect-government-secrets-and-punish-leaks-more-severely-event-audiovideo
The Federalist Societyhttp://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/governmentsecrets-3-7-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumRecent leaks of classified information have undermined the public’s confidence in the ability of their government to keep secrets. Government officials have alleged that these leaks have caused irreparable harm to America’s national security. However, while government officials criticize leaks, they oftentimes are complicit in leaking information when it serves their political interests. All experts seem to agree that some exposures undermine America’s ability to combat terrorism and counter other national security threats. But, other leaks are viewed as a form of whistleblowing and public accountability. Are there good leaks and bad leaks, and who decides? Should the U.S. government do a better job of protecting secrets? Should leakers be prosecuted? What about those media outlets and other entities who publish national security secrets, should they also be prosecuted? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Friday, March 7, 2014. -- Featuring: Dr. Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs; B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies; Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute and Prof. Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Former President, ACLU. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.The Federalist Society01:01:06noBalancing Privacy and Security 3-7-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Student Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/balancing-privacy-and-security-event-audiovideo" target="'_blank'"><img align="right" alt="Balancing Privacy and Security - Event Audio/Video" height="148" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140325_cybersecurity4.gif" width="233" /></a>This roundtable will address a wide range of issues and potential solutions to the challenges associated with balancing privacy and security in an increasingly technological world. In an era where individuals increasingly entrust their data to third parties, how can the right balance be struck between the government’s need to collect information, and the individual’s right to privacy in that information. Does the Fourth Amendment adequately protect an individual’s rights in an era of rapidly advancing technology, or should Congress play a more active role in regulating this space?</p><p>The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this roundtable discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Friday, March 7, 2014.</p><p><strong>Introductory Remarks</strong><br />6:00 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Devon Westhill,</strong> Chairman, Symposium Executive Committee</li><li><strong>Dean Robert H. Jerry II,</strong> University of Florida Levin College of Law</li></ul><p><strong>Roundtable Discussion: &ldquo;BALANCING PRIVACY AND SECURITY”</strong><br />6:15 – 8:00 p.m.<br /><em>J. Wayne Reitz Union</em></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, </strong>Partner, Dechert LLP</li><li><strong>Hon. Rachel L. Brand,</strong> Vice President &amp; Chief Counsel for Regulatory Litigation, National Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Member, Privacy &amp; Civil Liberties Oversight Board</li><li><strong><strong>Mr. Julian Sanchez,</strong> </strong>Research Fellow, The Cato Institute</li><li><strong>Prof. John Stinneford,</strong> Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Ted Ullyot,</strong> Former General Counsel, Facebook</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. William H. Pryor Jr.,</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">University of Florida Levin College of Law<br /> Gainesville, FL</p>25 Mar 2014 21:07:51 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/balancing-privacy-and-security-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/balancingprivacyandsecurity-3-7-2014.mp32014 Annual Student SymposiumThis roundtable will address a wide range of issues and potential solutions to the challenges associated with balancing privacy and security in an increasingly technological world. In an era where individuals increasingly entrust their data to third parties, how can the right balance be struck between the government’s need to collect information, and the individual’s right to privacy in that information. Does the Fourth Amendment adequately protect an individual’s rights in an era of rapidly advancing technology, or should Congress play a more active role in regulating this space? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this roundtable discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Friday, March 7, 2014. Introductory remarks made by Mr. Devon Westhill, Chairman of the Symposium Executive Committee and Dean Robert H. Jerry II of the University of Florida Levin College of Law. Featuring: Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP; Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Vice President & Chief Counsel for Regulatory Litigation, National Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Member, Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Mr. Julian Sanchez, Research Fellow, The Cato Institute; Prof. John Stinneford, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law; and Mr. Ted Ullyot, Former General Counsel, Facebook. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.The Federalist Society01:59:53noThe Twilight of Race-Based Preferences in College Admissions 2-12-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">Michigan Lawyers Chapter </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-twilight-of-race-based-preferences-in-college-admissions-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="The Twilight of Race-Based Preferences in College Admissions - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140311_CooleyRaceBasedPreferencesEvent.jpg" /></a>The Michigan Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on February 12, 2014, at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.</p><p><strong>Featuring:</strong></p><ul><li><strong><strong>Mr. Trevor Coleman,</strong></strong> Author and Speechwriter</li><li><strong><strong>Mr. Mark Fancher,</strong></strong> ACLU of Michigan</li><li><strong>Ms. Jennifer Gratz,</strong> XIV Foundation</li><li><strong>Mr. Hans von Spakovsky,</strong> Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Henry Payne,</strong> <em>The Detroit News</em></li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Matthew G. Davis,</strong>Communications Chair, Michigan Lawyers Chapter</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Ms. Penelope Williams,</strong>President, Thomas M. Cooley Student Chapter</li></ul><div><p style="text-align:center;">Thomas M. Cooley Law School<br /> Lansing, MI</p></div>11 Mar 2014 17:40:54 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-twilight-of-race-based-preferences-in-college-admissions-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/race-basedpreferences-2-12-2014.mp3Michigan Lawyers ChapterThe Michigan Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on February 12, 2014, at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. -- Featuring: Mr. Trevor Coleman, Author and Speechwriter; Mr. Mark Fancher, ACLU of Michigan; Ms. Jennifer Gratz, XIV Foundation; and Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Mr. Henry Payne, The Detroit News. Introduction: Mr. Matthew G. Davis, Communications Chair, Michigan Lawyers Chapter and Ms. Penelope Williams, President, Thomas M. Cooley Student Chapter.The Federalist Society01:13:25noThe NSA Telephone Metadata Program 2-24-2014<p><strong>The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-nsa-telephone-metadata-program-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="The NSA Telephone Metadata Program - Event Audio/Video" height="163" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140304_NSAphone.jpg" width="248" /></a>In the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals.</p><p>The Federalist Society presented this panel at &quot;The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium&quot; on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Panel II: The NSA Telephone Metadata Program</strong><br />2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.</p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, </strong>Partner, Dechert LLP, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice</li><li><strong>Mr. Jim Harper, </strong>Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute</li><li><strong>Ms. Kate Martin</strong> Director, Center for National Security Studies</li><li><strong>Mr. Benjamin Wittes, </strong>Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Prof. Nathan A. Sales,</strong>George Mason University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky,</strong> Chairman, International &amp; National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society﻿</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Jones Day LLP<br /> Washington, DC</p>4 Mar 2014 16:23:50 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/the-nsa-telephone-metadata-program-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/nsatelephonemetadataprogram-2-24-2014.mp3The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence SymposiumIn the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals. -- The Federalist Society presented this panel at "The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium" on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC. -- Panel II: The NSA Telephone Metadata Program -- Featuring: Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Ms. Kate Martin Director, Center for National Security Studies; and Mr. Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution. Moderator: Prof. Nathan A. Sales, George Mason University School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Chairman, International & National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society﻿.The Federalist Society01:29:53noA Conversation on the NSA Surveillance Programs 2-24-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/a-conversation-on-the-nsa-surveillance-programs-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="A Conversation on the NSA Surveillance Programs - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131122_NSA.gif" /></a>In the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals.</p><p>The Federalist Society presented this panel at &quot;The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium&quot; on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Luncheon: A Conversation on the NSA Surveillance Programs</strong><br />12:30 – 1:45 p.m.</p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Michael Chertoff,</strong> Co-founder and Managing Principal, The Chertoff Group, and former Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security</li><li><strong>Mr. Anthony D. Romero,</strong> Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Ms. Ellen Nakashima,</strong>National Security Reporter, <em>The Washington Post</em></li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky,</strong> Chairman, International &amp; National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Jones Day LLP<br /> Washington, DC</p>4 Mar 2014 16:21:47 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/a-conversation-on-the-nsa-surveillance-programs-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/nsasurveillanceprograms-2-24-2014.mp3The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence SymposiumIn the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals. -- The Federalist Society presented this panel at "The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium" on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC. -- Luncheon: A Conversation on the NSA Surveillance Programs -- Featuring: Hon. Michael Chertoff, Co-founder and Managing Principal, The Chertoff Group, and former Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security and Mr. Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union. Moderator: Ms. Ellen Nakashima, National Security Reporter, The Washington Post. Introduction: Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Chairman, International & National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society59:46noForeign Intelligence Collection and the FISA Court 2-24-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/foreign-intelligence-collection-and-the-fisa-court-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="Foreign Intelligence Collection and the FISA Court - Event Audio/Video" height="173" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140304_FISAcourt.jpg" width="242" /></a>In the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals.</p><p>The Federalist Society presented this panel at &quot;The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium&quot; on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC.</p><p><strong>Panel I: Foreign Intelligence Collection and the FISA Court</strong><br />11:00 a.m – 12:30 p.m.</p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Harley Geiger, </strong>Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Freedom, Security and Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy &amp; Technology</li><li><strong>Prof. Peter S. Margulies, </strong>Roger Williams University School of Law</li><li><strong>Mr. Julian Sánchez, </strong>Research Fellow, The Cato Institute</li><li><strong>Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, </strong>Partner, Cadwalader, Wickersham &amp; Taft LLP, former U.S. Homeland Security Advisor, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for National Security</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky,</strong>Chairman, International &amp; National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society﻿</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Jones Day LLP<br /> Washington, DC</p>4 Mar 2014 16:15:59 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/foreign-intelligence-collection-and-the-fisa-court-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/foreignintelligencecollection-2-24-14.mp3Foreign Intelligence Collection and the FISA Court 2-24-2014In the 12 years since 9/11, as the national security threat matrix has become increasingly complex, technological advances have expanded intelligence gathering capabilities significantly. Recently, public concern about government monitoring of individuals has come to the forefront of the discussion. To address the intersection of security, privacy, and intelligence, the President has proposed several reforms, and is studying others in consultation with Congress. This Symposium will analyze and offer observations on those proposals. -- The Federalist Society presented this panel at "The NSA, Security, Privacy, and Intelligence Symposium" on February 24, 2014, at Jones Day LLP in Washington, DC. -- Panel I: Foreign Intelligence Collection and the FISA Court -- Featuring: Mr. Harley Geiger, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Freedom, Security and Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy & Technology; Prof. Peter S. Margulies, Roger Williams University School of Law; Mr. Julian Sánchez, Research Fellow, The Cato Institute; and Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, former U.S. Homeland Security Advisor, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for National Security. Moderator: Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Chairman, International & National Security Law Practice Group, The Federalist Society﻿.The Federalist Society01:34:49noHow Do We Balance Disclosure with Maintaining the Privacy of Participants in Contentious Issues? 1-25-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference </span></p><p><img align="right" alt="How Do We Balance Disclosure with Maintaining the Privacy of Participants in Contentious Issues? - Event Audio" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140203_ballotinitiative.gif" />Supporters of Proposition 8 have invoked <em>NAACP v. Alabama</em> to support their claims for anonymity, citing fears of intimidation and discrimination because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. How much transparency is needed when it comes to donors and supporters of contentious political issues? Is a signature on a petition deserving of a different degree of privacy than a financial contribution? Do different levels of support deserve different degrees of scrutiny? Or, as even Justice Scalia declared in oral arguments in <em>Doe vs. Reed</em>, is a certain amount of &ldquo;civic courage” needed when taking a public stand on an issue? Do threats of harassment or even violence trump the need for transparency and disclosure? What are the repercussions for the First Amendment and direct democracy? How much privacy should be offered in ballot measure disclosure systems?</p><p><strong><strong>Panel Two: How Do We Balance Disclosure with Maintaining the Privacy of Participants in Contentious Issues?</strong></strong></p><ul><li><strong>Mr. Paul Avelar</strong>, Institute for Justice</li><li><strong>Mr. Manny Klausner</strong>, Reason Foundation</li><li><strong>Mr. Peter Scheer</strong>, First Amendment Coalition</li><li><strong>Mr. Hans von Spakovsky</strong>, The Heritage Foundation</li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Carolyn Kuhl</strong>, Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Ronald Reagan Presidential Library<br /> Simi Valley, CA</p>3 Feb 2014 22:01:25 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/how-do-we-balance-disclosure-with-maintaining-the-privacy-of-participants-in-contentious-issues-event-audio
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/disclosureandprivacy-1-25-14.mp32014 Annual Western Chapters ConferenceSupporters of Proposition 8 have invoked NAACP v. Alabama to support their claims for anonymity, citing fears of intimidation and discrimination because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. How much transparency is needed when it comes to donors and supporters of contentious political issues? Is a signature on a petition deserving of a different degree of privacy than a financial contribution? Do different levels of support deserve different degrees of scrutiny? Or, as even Justice Scalia declared in oral arguments in Doe vs. Reed, is a certain amount of “civic courage” needed when taking a public stand on an issue? Do threats of harassment or even violence trump the need for transparency and disclosure? What are the repercussions for the First Amendment and direct democracy? How much privacy should be offered in ballot measure disclosure systems? -- Featuring: Mr. Paul Avelar, Institute for Justice; Mr. Manny Klausner, Reason Foundation; Mr. Peter Scheer, First Amendment Coalition; and Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Hon. Carolyn Kuhl, Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.The Federalist Society01:27:34noAn Interview with Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese 1-25-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/an-interview-with-former-us-attorney-general-ed-meese-event-audio"><img align="right" alt="Ed Meese" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20070410_MeeseEd.jpg" /></a>The Federalist Society's Lawyers Division hosted this interview with Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Saturday, January 25, 2014, during the 2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference.</p><p><strong>Luncheon Address: An Interview with Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Hon. Edwin Meese III</strong>, Former U.S. Attorney General</li><li><strong><em>Interviewer:</em> Hon. Carlos T. Bea</strong>, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Eugene B. Meyer,</strong>President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Ronald Reagan Presidential Library<br /> Simi Valley, CA</p>3 Feb 2014 21:58:35 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/an-interview-with-former-us-attorney-general-ed-meese-event-audio
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/interviewwithedmeese-1-25-14.mp32014 Annual Western Chapters ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Lawyers Division hosted this interview with Former Attorney General Ed Meese by Judge Carlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Saturday, January 25, 2014, during the 2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference.The Federalist Society01:06:55noHas the United States Supreme Court Killed California’s Initiative Process or Helped Check Its Abuses? 1-25-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference </span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/has-the-united-states-supreme-court-killed-californias-initiative-process-or-helped-check-its-abuses-event-audio"><img align="right" alt="Has the United States Supreme Court Killed California’s Initiative Process or Helped Check Its Abuses? - Event Audio" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20140203_CaliforniaInitiatives.gif" /></a>This panel will focus on what effect the United States Supreme Court’s holding that initiative proponents lack standing to defend initiatives that the Governor and Attorney General will not defend will have on California’s initiative process in general. What are the pros and cons of the initiative process as a matter of public policy? Do government lawyers (and politicians) have an ethical obligation to defend laws they do not agree with, especially those passed via citizen initiative?</p><p><strong>Panel One: Has the United States Supreme Court killed California’s initiative process or helped check its abuses?</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Rick Hasen</strong>, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine</li><li><strong>Mr. Dan Kolkey</strong>, Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher</li><li><strong>Prof. Justin Levitt</strong>, Loyola Marymount University</li><li><strong>Prof. Kenneth Miller</strong>, Claremont McKenna, and Author, <em>Direct Democracy and the Courts</em></li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Hon. Sandra Ikuta</strong>, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Mr. Leonard A. Leo,</strong> Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Ronald Reagan Presidential Library<br /> Simi Valley, CA</p>3 Feb 2014 21:55:53 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/has-the-united-states-supreme-court-killed-californias-initiative-process-or-helped-check-its-abuses-event-audio
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/californiainitiativeprocess-1-25-14.mp32014 Annual Western Chapters ConferenceThis panel will focus on what effect the United States Supreme Court’s holding that initiative proponents lack standing to defend initiatives that the Governor and Attorney General will not defend will have on California’s initiative process in general. What are the pros and cons of the initiative process as a matter of public policy? Do government lawyers (and politicians) have an ethical obligation to defend laws they do not agree with, especially those passed via citizen initiative? -- Featuring: Prof. Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine; Mr. Dan Kolkey, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher; Prof. Justin Levitt, Loyola Marymount University; and Prof. Kenneth Miller, Claremont McKenna, and Author, Direct Democracy and the Courts. Moderator: Hon. Sandra Ikuta, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society.The Federalist Society01:54:12noYoung Legal Scholars Paper Presentations 1-4-14<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">16th Annual Faculty Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/young-legal-scholars-paper-presentations-event-audiovideo-5"><img align="right" alt="Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131030_lawschoolbooks.gif" /></a>The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel featuring young legal scholar paper presentations on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference.</p><p><strong>Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Andrew Kent</strong>, Fordham University School of Law, &quot;Are Damages Different? Bivens and National Security&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld</strong>, Northwestern University School of Law, &quot;Redressive Justice&quot;</li><li><strong>Dr. Robert Leider</strong>, Law Clerk to the Hon. Diane Sykes, &quot;Federalism and the Military Power of the United States&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Aaron Nielson</strong>, BYU Law School, &quot;In Defense of Formal Rulemaking&quot;</li><li><strong>Prof. Ozan Varol</strong>, Lewis &amp; Clark Law School, &quot;Temporary Constitutions&quot;</li><li><em><strong>Commenter﻿﻿</strong></em><strong>: Prof. Thomas Merrill</strong>, Columbia Law School </li><li><strong><em>Moderator:</em> Prof. Steven Calabresi,</strong>Northwestern Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Warwick New York Hotel<br /> New York NY</p>10 Jan 2014 15:46:44 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/young-legal-scholars-paper-presentations-event-audiovideo-5
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/younglegalscholarspaperpresentations-1-4-14.mp316th Annual Faculty ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel featuring young legal scholar paper presentations on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference. Featuring: Prof. Andrew Kent, Fordham University School of Law, author of "Are Damages Different? Bivens and National Security"; Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern University School of Law, author of "Redressive Justice"; Dr. Robert Leider, Law Clerk to the Hon. Diane Sykes, author of "Federalism and the Military Power of the United States"; Prof. Aaron Nielson, BYU Law School, author of "In Defense of Formal Rulemaking"; and Prof. Ozan Varol, Lewis & Clark Law School, author of "Temporary Constitutions". Commenter﻿﻿: Prof. Thomas Merrill, Columbia Law School. Moderator: Prof. Steven Calabresi, Northwestern Law School.The Federalist Society01:55:42noIs Privacy Regulation Likely to Reduce the Value of the Internet? 1-4-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">16th Annual Faculty Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-privacy-regulation-likely-to-reduce-the-value-of-the-internet-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="Is Privacy Regulation Likely to Reduce the Value of the Internet? - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20110506_onlineprivacy.gif" /></a>The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a debate that asked &quot;Is Privacy Regulation Likely to Reduce the Value of the Internet?&quot; on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference.</p><p><strong>Lunch Debate: Is Privacy Regulation Likely to Reduce the Value of the Internet?</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Paul Rubin</strong>, Emory University School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Ryan Calo</strong>, University of Washington School of Law</li><li><em><strong>Moderator:</strong></em> <strong>Prof. William Kovacic</strong>, George Washington University Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Warwick New York Hotel<br /> New York NY</p>10 Jan 2014 15:44:24 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/is-privacy-regulation-likely-to-reduce-the-value-of-the-internet-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/privacyregulationontheinternent-1-4-2014.mp316th Annual Faculty ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a debate that asked "Is Privacy Regulation Likely to Reduce the Value of the Internet?" on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference. -- Featuring: Prof. Paul Rubin, Emory University School of Law and Prof. Ryan Calo, University of Washington School of Law. Moderator: Prof. William Kovacic, George Washington University Law School.The Federalist Society01:27:09noNatural Law and Natural Rights 1-4-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">16th Annual Faculty Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/natural-law-and-natural-rights-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="Natural Law and Natural Rights - Event Audio/Video" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20131122_constitutionwithquillglasses.gif" /></a>The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel discussion on &quot;Natural Law and Natural Rights&quot; on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference.</p><p><strong>Panel 3: Natural Law and Natural Rights</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Michael Baur,</strong> Fordham University School of Law, &quot;What Rights Are and Why There Are Any: What the Classical (Aristotelian-Thomistic) Natural Law Approach Has to Say﻿&quot;</li><li><strong>Lt. Col. Brian﻿ Bengs</strong>, NATO School, &quot;Self Defense Under Siege: The Role of Individual Self Defense in the Battlespace﻿&quot;</li><li><strong><em>Commenter</em>: Prof. Michael Moreland</strong>, Villanova University School of Law﻿</li><li><strong><em>Commenter</em>: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin</strong>, George Mason University School of Law﻿</li><li><strong><em>Commenter</em>: Prof. Roderick Hills Jr</strong>., New York University School of Law</li><li><strong><em>Moderator</em>: Prof. Eric Claeys,</strong> George Mason University School of Law</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Warwick New York Hotel<br /> New York NY</p>10 Jan 2014 15:41:33 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/natural-law-and-natural-rights-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/naturallaw-naturalrights-1-4-2014.mp316th Annual Faculty ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel discussion on "Natural Law and Natural Rights" on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference. -- Featuring: Prof. Michael Baur, Fordham University School of Law, author of "What Rights Are and Why There Are Any: What the Classical (Aristotelian-Thomistic) Natural Law Approach Has to Say﻿" and Lt. Col. Brian﻿ Bengs, NATO School, author of "Self Defense Under Siege: The Role of Individual Self Defense in the Battlespace﻿". Commenters: Prof. Michael Moreland, Villanova University School of Law﻿; Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, George Mason University School of Law﻿; and Prof. Roderick Hills Jr., New York University School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Eric Claeys, George Mason University School of Law.The Federalist Society01:43:05no﻿Public Interest Litigation Workshop 1-4-2014<p><span style="font-weight:bold;">16th Annual Faculty Conference</span></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/public-interest-litigation-workshop-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="﻿Public Interest Litigation Workshop - Event Audio/Video" height="183" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20091030_courtroomgavel.jpg" width="221" /></a>The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this workshop on public interest litigation on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference.</p><p>﻿<strong>Public Interest Litigation Workshop</strong></p><ul><li>﻿<strong>Prof. Eugene Volokh</strong>, UCLA School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Randy Barnett</strong>, Georgetown University Law Center</li><li><strong><em>Introduction:</em> Hon. Lee Liberman Otis</strong>, Senior Vice President &amp; Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Warwick New York Hotel<br /> New York NY</p>10 Jan 2014 15:38:54 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/public-interest-litigation-workshop-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/publicinterestlitigationworkshop-1-4-2014.mp316th Annual Faculty ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this workshop on public interest litigation on Saturday, January 4, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference. -- Featuring: ﻿Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law and Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society.47:10noWho Determines an Agency's Power? 1-3-2014<p><strong>16th Annual Faculty Conference</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/who-determines-an-agencys-power-event-audiovideo"><img align="right" alt="" height="217" src="http://www.fed-soc.org/library/imglib/20120914_fcclogo.jpg" width="216" /></a>The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel discussion which asked &quot;Who Determines an Agency's Power?&quot; on Friday, January 3, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference.</p><p><strong>Panel 2: Who Determines an Agency's Power? ﻿</strong><em> </em></p><ul><li><strong>Prof. Christopher Walker</strong>, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law﻿</li><li><strong>Prof. Frederick (Andy) Hessick</strong>, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law﻿</li><li><strong>Prof. John Duffy</strong>, University of Virginia School of Law</li><li><strong>Prof. Gregory Maggs</strong>, George Washington University Law School</li><li><em><strong>Moderator:</strong></em> <strong>Prof. John McGinnis</strong>, Northwestern University Law School</li></ul><p style="text-align:center;">Warwick New York Hotel<br /> New York NY</p>10 Jan 2014 15:32:56 GMT http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/who-determines-an-agencys-power-event-audiovideo
http://www.fed-soc.org/library/audiolib/whodeterminesanagencyspower-1-3-2014.mp316th Annual Faculty ConferenceThe Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted this panel discussion which asked "Who Determines an Agency's Power?" on Friday, January 3, 2014, during the 16th Annual Faculty Conference. -- Featuring: Prof. Christopher Walker, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law﻿; Prof. Frederick (Andy) Hessick, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law﻿; Prof. John Duffy, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Gregory Maggs, George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University Law School.The Federalist Society01:25:30no